i»^t^"' 


^*--'-^^wmmi 


'^ 


GIVEN     BY 


Re/,   r  Rpple"(on 


^^^M*.:   iS^i^-ey^-^^. 


% 


V,  ♦< 


*v:.>  .  s 


VALUABLE  WORKS 

ON 

THEOLOGY  AND  ECCLESIASTICAL  HISTORY, 

PUBLISHED    BY 

D.    APPLETON  AND  COMPANY, 

•       200  BROADWAY,  NEW-YORK. 


BURNET'S  HISTORY  OF  THE  REFORMATION. 

The  History  of  the  Reformation  of  the  Church  of  England,  by  Gilbert 
Burnet,  D.D.,  late  Lord  Bishop  of  Salisbury— with  the  Collection  of 
Records  and  a  copious  Index,  revised  and  corrected,  with  additional 
Notes  and  a  Preface,  by  the  Rev.  E.  Nares,  D.D.,  late  Professor  of 
Modern  History  in  the  University  of  Oxford.  Illustrated  with  a  Fron- 
tispiece and  twenty-three  elegantly  engraved  Portraits,  forming  four 
elegant  Svo.  volumes. 

*+*  The  established  character  of  Bishop  Burnet's  History  of  the  Reformation  as  a  stand- 
ard work,  and  most  valuable  historical  authority,  renders  it  unnecessary  for  the  American 
Publishers  to  enter  into  any  analysis  of  its  merit,  further  than  briefly  to  state  the  advanta- 
ges of  this  edition  over  all  others. 

"  Often  as  this  celebrated  History  of  the  Reformation  of  the  Church  of  England  has 
been  printed  and  published,  often  as  it  has  been  read,  and  continually  as  it  has  been  refer- 
red to  by  successive  writers,  interested  in  the  important  subject  of  which  it  treats ;  yet 
one  thing  seems  to  have  been  constantly  overlooked,  namely,  the  necessity  of  a  distinct 
Preface  to  pomt  out,  and  to  explain  to  readers  in  general,  the  particular  character  of  the 
publication. 

"  It  is  a  work  of  too  great  magnitude  to  be  repeatedly  read  through,  and  though  its  emi- 
nence as  an  historical  work,  must  always  be  such  as  to  render  it  imperatively  necessary  for 
sertain  writers  to  consult  its  pages,  yet  in  every  reprint  of  it,  it  should  be  contemplated  by 
vhe  publisher  not  merely  as  a  book  of  reference,  but  as  one  to  be  read  like  other  books  of 
history  regularly  from  the  beginning  to  the  end,  not  by  professed  scholars  only,  or  by  per- 
sons already  versed  in  history,  civil  or  ecclesiastical,  but  by  such  as  maybe  only  begrnning 
their  historical  inquiries  and  researches — young  readers  and  mere  students. 

"  Scarcely  any  other  book  of  equal  importance,  perhaps,  stands  so  much  in  need  of  prelimi 
nary  explanations,  as  this  great  work  of  the  celebrated  writer  whose  name  it  bears.  And  it 
must  often,  we  should  think,  have  been  a  matter  of  just  surprise  to  the  readers  of  this  his- 
tory, that,  in  the  editions  hitherto  published,  the  errors  in  the  first  and  second  volumes  have 
been  reprinted,  which  the  author  himself  noticed  at  the  end  of  the  ihirJ  volume.  In  the 
present  edition  the  text  will  be  found  corrected  as  it  should  be,  aiidi"><JJv  explanatory  notes 
ftdded  throughout  the  work." — Editor^s  Preface. 


S  Valuable   Works  on   Theology  and  Ecclesiastical  History. 


BURNET  ON  THE  XXXIX  ARTICLES. 

An  Exposition  of  the  Thirty -nine  Articles  of  the  Church  of  England,  by 
Bishop  Burnet.  With  an  Appendix,  containing  the  Augsburg  Confes- 
sion— Creed  of  Pope  Pius  IV.,  &lc.  Revised  and  corrected,  with  co- 
pious Notes  and  additional  References,  by  the  Rev.  James  R.  Page, 
A.M.,  of  Queen's  College,  Cambridge.     In  one  handsome  8vo.  volume. 

The  advantrigcs  of  this  edition  over  all  others  may  be  stated  as  follows  : 

In  the  first  place,  the  learned  author's  text  has  been  preserved  with  strict  fidelity. 

2d.  The  references  to  the  Fathers,  Councils,  and  other  authorities  have  been  almost  uni- 
versally verified  :  and,  in  many  instances,  corrected  and  so  enlarged  as  to  render  them 
easy  of  access  tothe  student. 

3d.  A  large  number  of  Scripture  references  have  been  added.  In  different  parts  of 
this  work.  Bishop  Burnet  lays  down  propositions  without  giving  the  Scripture  by  which 
they  may  be  proved.  The  editor  has,  however,  added  references  in  these  and  all  other  in- 
stances where  they  might  be  considered  not  merely  additions,  but  also  improvements. 

4th.  The  Canons  and  decrees  of  Council  and  other  documents  of  importance  referred 
to  have  been  given  in  the  original,  and  from  ihe  most  authentic  sources — the  places  where 
they  are  to  be  found  being  specified. 

5th.  Copious  Notes  have  been  added,  containing,  besides  other  informaftion,  notices  of 
the  principal  heretics  and  persons  of  note,  with  an  accurate  account  of  their  opinions. 
Also  extracts  chiefly  from  the  works  of  the  most  distinguished  divines  of  the  sixteenth  and 
seventeenth  centuries,  opening  and  illustrating  the  chief  points  in  controversy  between  us 
and  the  chirch  of  Rome.  In  an  appendix  has  also  been  given  the  Confession  of  Augsburg, 
and  Creed  of  Pope  Pius  IV.,  in  the  English  and  original  tongues,  and  in  the  original  only, 
the  canons  and  rubric  of  the  Mass. 

Indices  of  Te.xts  of  Scripture  and  of  the  matter  contained  in  the  Notes,  have  also  been 
given,  together  with  a  list  of  authors  quoted  in  the  Editor's  portion  of  the  volume. 

In  fine,  the  Editor's  design  has  been  to  make,  as  far  as  was  possible,  within  such  a  com- 
pass, this  great  work  what  he  humbly  hopes  it  may  be  found — a  Manual  for  the  Theologi- 
cal Student. — Vide  Editor's  Preface. 

"  The  valuable  References,  Notes,  and  Indices,  which  accompany  your  edition,  will  give 
It  a  vast  superiority  over  every  other." — Lord  Bishop  of  Winchester. 

"  The  editor  has  given  to  our  clergy  and  our  students  in  theology  an  edition  of  this  work, 
which  must  necessarily  supersede  every  other,  and  we  feel  he  deserves  well  at  the  hands  of 
the  Church  of  England,  which  he  has  so  materially  served." — Church  of  England  Quar- 
terly Revievj. 

"  It  may  be  predicted  that  this  edition  of  Bishop  Burnet's  work  will  henceforth  be  the 
most  popular.  It  is  enriched  with  excellent  Notes  from  Bishop  Jewell,  Hooker,  &c.  &c., 
and  with  very  useful  compcndiums  of  information  on  ecclesiastical  points,  furnished  by  the- 
Editor  himself." — British  Magazine. 


Valuable  Works  on  Theology  and  Ecclesiastical  History.       3 


PEARSON    ON    THE    CREED 
AN  EXPOSITION  OF  THE  CREED, 

BY  JOHN  PEARSON,  D.D., 

Late  Bishop  of  Chester. 

With   an    Appendix,  containing  the   principal  Greek  and  Latin  Creeds    *; 
,  Revised  and  corrected  by  the  Rev.  W.  S.  Dobson,  M.A.,  Peterhouse, 
Cambridge.     In  one  handsome  8vo.  volume. 

The  following  may  he  stated  as  the  advantages  of  this  edition  over  all  others. 

First — Great  care  has  been  taken  to  correct  the  numerous  errors  in  the  references  to  the 
textsofScripture,  which  had  crept  in  by  reason  of  the  repeated  editions  through  which 
this  admirable  Work  has  passed  ;  and  many  references,  as  will  be  seen  on  turning  to  the 
Index  of  Texts,  have  been  added. 

Secondly— The  Quotations   in  the  Notes  have  been  almost  oiiiversally  identified  and 

the  references  to  them  adjoined. 

Lastly— The  principal  Symbola  or  Creeds,  of  which  the  particular  Articles  have  been 
cited  by  the  Author,  have  been  annexed  ;  and  wherever  the  original  writers  have  given 
the  Symbola  in  a  scattered  and  disjointed  manner,  the  detached  parts  have  been  brought 
into  a  successive  and  connected  point  of  view.  These  have  been  added  in  chronological 
order  in  the  form  of  an  Appendix." — Vide  Editor. 

"  This  admirable  Exposition  of  the  Creed,  originally  preached  to  his  parishioners  in  the 
form  of  Sermons,  has  been  long  and  deservedly  considered  among  the  best  and  most 
useful  theological  productions  of  our  language.  Of  Pearson  it  was  said,  '  that  the  very 
dust  of  his  writings  is  gold.'  " — Dr.  Dihdin's  Library  Companion. 

"  Pearson's  Exposition  of  the  Apostles'  Creed  is  a  standard  book  in  English  Divinity. 
It  expands  beyond  the  literal  purport  of  the  Creed  itself  to  most  articles  of  orthodox  belief, 
and  is  a  valuable  summary  of  arguments  and  authorities  on  that  side.  The  closeness  of 
Pearson,  and  his  judicious  selection  of  proofs,  distinguish  him  from  many  of  the  earher 
Theologians." — Hallani's  Literature  of  Europe. 

"  This  is  a  work  of  great  learning  and  mert.  It  contains  a  system  of  Theology,  a  good 
deal  of  controversy,  and  a  large  portion  of  biblical  exposition.  On  the  last  account  it  is 
entitled  to  a  place  in  this  work,  and  will  repay  an  attentive  pMiisah"-  Ormes'  Bibliotheca. 
Biblid. 


Valuable  Works  on  TJieology  and  Ecclesiastical  History. 


PALMER'S    TREATISE    ON    THE    CHURCH 

A  TREATISE  ON  THE  CHURCH  OF  CHRIST. 

DESIGNED  CHIEFLY  FOR  THE  USE  OF  STUDENTS  IN  THEOLOGy. 

BY   THE  REV.  WILLIAM  PALMER,  M.A., 

Of  Worcester  College,  Oxford. 

EDITED,     W  IT  H      NOTES, 

»  BY  THE  RIGHT  REV.  W.  R.  WHITTINGHAM,  D.D., 

Bishop  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal    Church  in  the  Diocese  of  Maryland. 

2  vols.  8vo.  handsomely  printed  on  fine  paper, 

"The  treatise  of  Mr.  Palmer  is  the  best  exposition  and  vindication  of  Church  Principles 
that  we  have  ever  read  ;  excelling  contemporaneous  treatises  in  depth  of  learning  and 
solidity  of  judgment,  as  much  as  it  excels  older  treatises  on  the  like  subjects,  in  adaptation 
to  the  wants  and  habits  of  the  age.  Of  its  influence  in  England,  where  it  has  passed 
through  two  editions,  we  have  not  the  means  to  form  an  opinion  ;  but  we  believe  that  in 
this  country  it  has  already  even  before  its  reprint,  done  more  to  restore  the  sound  tone  of 
Catholic  principle  and  feeling  than  any  ottier  one  work  of  the  age.  The  author's  learning 
and  powers  of  combmation  and  arrangement,  great  as  they  obviously  are,  are  less  remark 
able  than  the  sterling  good  sense,  the  vigorous  and  solid  judgment,  which  is  everywhere 
manifest  in  the  treatise,  and  confers  on  it  its  distinctive  excellence.  The  style  of  the 
author  is  distinguished  for  dignity  and  masculine  energy,  while  his  tone  is  everywhere 
natural ;  on  proper  occasions,  reverential  ;  and  always,  so  far  as  we  remember,  suffi- 
ciently conciliatory. 

"  To  our  clergy  and  intelligent  laity,  who  desire  to  see   the  Church  justly  discriminated 
-from  Romanists  on  the  one  hand,  and  dissentjng  denominations  on  the  other,  we  earnestly 
commend  Palmer's  Treatise  on  the  Church." — New-York  Churchman. 

'  This  able,  elaborate,  and  learned  vindication  of  the  claim  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church,  to  be  considered  the  true  Catholic  Church,  and  the  exposure  which  is  here  made 
of  the  grounds  of  difference  between  it  and  he  Romish  Church,  and  of  the  baseless  pre- 
tensions of  that  church  to  he  the  'one  Holy  Catholic,  and  Agpstolic  Church,'  will  assu- 
redly commend  these  volumes  to  the  favour  of  Churchmen. 

"  At  a  moment  when  Poperj',  as  is  well  expressed  in  the  American  Editor's  preface,  is 
spreading  among  us  by  '  the  aid  mainly  of  imported  men,  money,  and  members,'  it  is 
well,  by  a  true  relation  of  what  Popery  really  is,  to  put  the  nation  on  guard  against  its  en- 
croachments This  service  is  done  by  this  treatise,  of  which  it  were  recommendation 
•enough  to  sav,  that  its  republication  has  engaged  the  labours  and  time  of,  and  is  com- 
mended to  the  use  of  theological  students  by,  certainly  not  the  leE.st  learned,  pious,  and 
exemplary  of  our  American  Bishops. 

"  Tlic  pubUshers  deserve  a  full  share  of  commendation  for  the  handsome  manner  m  which 
they  have  sent  forth  these  volumes." — N.  Y.  American. 


CHURCHMAN'S  LIBRAIY, 


The  greatest  care  is  taken  in  selecting  the  works  of  which  this  collec- 
tion is  composed.  Each  volume  is  printed  on  the  finest  paper,  elegantly 
ornamented,  and  bound  in  a  superior  manner,  and  uniform  in  size.  Bishop 
Doane  says  of  this  collection,  "  I  write  to  express  my  thanks  to  you  for 
reprints  of  the  Oxford  Books  ;  first,  for  such  books,  and  secondly,  in  such 
a  style.  I  sincerely  hope'you  may  be  encouraged  to  go  on,  and  give  them 
all  to  us.  You  will  dignify  the  art  of  printing,  and  you  will  do  great  ser- 
vice to  the  best  interests  of  the  country."  In  a  letter  received  from  Bishop 
Whittingham,  he  says,  "  I  had  forgotten  to  state  my  very  great  satisfaction 
at  your  commencement  of  a  series  of  Devotional  Works,  lately  republish- 
ed in  Oxford."  The  publishers  beg  to  state,  while  in  so  short  a  time  the 
Library  has  increased  to  so  many  volumes,  they  are  encouraged  to  make 
yet  larger  additions,  and  earnestly  hope  it  may  receive  all  the  encourage- 
ment it  deserves. 

The  following  volumes  have  already  appeared  : 

THE  EARLY  ENGLISH  CHURCH, 

OR    CHRISTIAN    HISTORY    OF    ENGLAND 

IN    EARLY    BRITISH,  SAXON,    AND    NORMAN    TIMES. 

.     BY  THE  REV.  EDWARD  CHURTON,  M.  A. 

WITH  A   PREFACE    BY    THE    RIGHT    REV.    BISHOP    IVES 

1  vol.  16mo.,  elegantly  ornamented. 

"The  following  delightful  pages  place  before  us  some  of  the  choicest  examples— both  clerical 
aind  lay— of  the  true  Christian  spirit,  in  the  EARLY  ENGLISH  CHURCH.  In  truth,  these 
pages  are  crowded  with  weighty  lessons.  Here  our  laity  will  find  that  these  noble  foundations 
of  "charity  in  the  mother  country— the  existence  of  which  they  have  been  accusiomed  to  ascribe 
to  the  credulity  of  ig-noiance,  or  the  fears  of  superstition,  successfully  practised  upon  by  the  arts 
of  priests— had  a  higher  and  holier  origin— that  they  sprang-  into  being  under  the  warm  impulses 
of  that  divine  and  expansive  benevolence  of  which  the  constraining  power  of  Christ's  love  made 
his  early  f.Uowers  such  large  partakers  at  the  period  while  yet  Christian  men  fully  recognised 
their  high  vocations,  as  '  stewards  of  the  manifold  gifts  of  God,'— lived  under  the  abiding  convic- 
tion, that  we  are  not  our  own,  but  that,  '  bought  with  the  precious  blood  of  Christ,'  we  are  '  bound 
to  glorify  him  in  our  bodies  and  our  spirits,  which  are  his.'  Here,  too,  our  clergy  may  learn  a 
lesson  of  true  self-devotion  to  their  Master— may  see,  strikingly  and  beautikilly  illustrated,  that 
love  for  Christ,  and  that  zeal  for  his  kingdom,  which  alone  can  bear  us  tranquilly  and  success- 
fully through  the  labours  and  trials  of  the  holy  ministry— may  see  the  operation  of  the  true  mis- 
sionary spirit— the  spirit  of  endurance  and  self-sacrifice  which  shrinks  from  no  obstacles  when 
the  salvation  of  sinners  is  to  be  achieved  under  ihe  command  and  the  promise  of  the  Alniif.dity  God 
— may  see,  in  short,  an  impressive  and  instructive  exemplification  of  ihat  child-like  submission 
to  God,  that  pure  and  simple  trust  in  him,  which,  at  his  bidding,  performs  duly,  and  leaves  the 
result  to  his  providence  and  grace.  .  .      ... 

"  But,  to  read  these  pages  with  profit,  we  must  pray  to  God  for  a  portion  of  that  spint  which 
indited  them,  and  which  so  manifestly  controlled  the  events  which  thty  record— must  read  them 
with  a  spiritual  eye  ;  with  an  eye  intent  upon  discovering— not  that  which  may  help  to  sustain 
some  preconceived  notion— but  that  which,  prompted  by  the  spirit  of  Christ,  and  accomplished 
through  the  power  of  his  saving  truth,  exhibits  to  us  some  great  principle  of  Christian  acuon,  and 
some  powerful  motive  to  '  go  and  do  likewise.'  "—Vide  Prtface. 


Chiirchmari's  Library. 


MEDITATIONS  ON  THE  SACRAMENT. 

GODLY  MEDITATIONS  UPON  THE  MOST  HOLY  SACRA- 
MENT OF  THE  LORD'S  SUPPER. 

BY  CHRISTOPHER  SUTTON,  D.D.  LATE  PREBEND  OF  WESTMINSTER. 

1  vol.  royal  16mo.,  elegajltly  ornamented. 

"  We  announced  in  our  last  number  the  republication  in  this  country,  of  Sutton's  '  Meditations 
on  the  Lord's  Supper,'  and  having  since  read  the  work,  are  prepared  to  recommend  il  waiinly  and 
without  qualification  to  the  perusal  of  our  readers.  It  is  purc'ly  ])ractical  ;  the  doctrine  ol  the  Eu- 
charist being  touched  upon  only  in  so  far  as  was  necessary  to  guard  against  error.  Its  standard 
of  piety  is  very  high,  and  the  helps  which  it  affords  to  a  devout  participation  of  the  holy  sacra- 
ment of  which  it  treats,  should  make  it  the  inseparable  companion  of  every  communicant.  We 
know  indeed  of  no  work  on  the  subject  that  can  in  all  respects  i.e  compared  with  it  ;  and  for  its 
agency  in  promoting  that  advancement  in  hohness  after  which  every  Christian  should  strive,  have 
no  hesitation  in  classing  it  wi'.h  the  Treatise  on  '  Holy  Living  and  Dying,'  of  Bishop  Taylor,  and 
the  'Sacra  Privata'  of  Bishop  Wilson.  The  period  at  which  the  book  was  written  will  account 
for,  and  excuse,  what  in  the  present  age  would  be  regarded  as  defects  of  style  ;  but  these  are 
fewer  than  mi<du  have  been  expected,  and  are  soon  lost  sight  of  in  the  contemplation  of  the  many 
and  great  excellencies  with  which  it  abounds.  The  publishers  have  done  good' service  to  the 
country  in  the  puiilication  of  this  work,  whicli  is  a  beautiful  reprint  of  the  Oxford  edition,  and  we 
are  glad  to  learn  that  it  will  be  speedily  followed  by  the  '  Disce  Vivere'  ajld  '  Disce  Mori'  of  the 
sac"' author." — Banner  of  the  Cross. 


■    LEARN  TO  DIE. 

DISCE  MORI,  LEARN  TO    DIE'. 

A  Religious  Discourse,  moving  every  Christian  man  to  enter  into  a  serious 

Remembrance  of  his  End. 

BY  CHRISTOPHER  SUTTON,  D.D.,  LATE  PREBEND  OF  WESTMINSTER. 

1  vol.  16mo.,  elegantly  ornamented. 

"  This  is  another  worthy  addition  to  the  most  beautiful  and  excellent  series  of  religions  works 
which  the  Appletons  have  in  the  course  of  |)ublication  under  the  title  of 'TheChurchman's  Library.' 
The  book  is  eminently  practical,  containing  the  best  and  wisest  aids  in  building  up  the  Christian 
character  and  leading  the  mind  through  holy  thoughts  and  divine  aspirations  to  the  mount  of  peace 
and  sacred  rest.  The  author  is  wiucly  known  as  one  of  the  most  devoted  servants  of  the  church, 
and  those  of  his  works  which  have  already  bi^en  published  have  been  most  favourably  received. 
The  outward  dress  of  this  volume,  like  that  of  the  series  to  which  it  belongs,  is  remarkably  neat 
and  elegant.     We  most  heartily  commend  the  work  to  the  attention  of  the  Christian  public." — 

New-Yorker.  i,»      ,  ■ 

"  Of  the  three  works  of  this  excellent  author  lately  reprinted  in  England,  the  '  Disce  Mori  is, 
in  our  judgment,  decirledly  the  best.  It  was  the  favourite  book  of  the  Bisliop  of  Jolly,  who,  the 
touching  incident  cannot  be  forgotten,  died  with  it  in  his  hands.  It  was  this  fact,  we  believe, 
which  first  recalled  the  book  from  the  oblivion  into  which  it  had  fallen  ;  and  our  readers  may  re- 
memoer,  that  shortly  after  its  republication  in  England  we  urged  an  American  reprint,  on  the 
ground  that  it  was  a  book  which  would  prove  universally  acceptable  to  the  Church.  Such  is  still 
our  opinion  ;  we  do  not  believe  that  a  single  journal  or  clergyman  in  the  Church  will  be  found  to 
say  a  word  in  its  disparagement ;  but  that,  on  the  contrary,  all  will  unite  in  commending  it  as  one 
of  the  very  best  of  our  practical  works,  equally  devotional  and  almost  equally  rich  with  the  simi- 
lar work  of  I'aylor,  ami  free  fmm  those  features  with  which  Taylor  startles  such  weak  minds  as 
have  a  morbid  dread  of  Romanism.  Our  columns  have  been,  and  now  that  the  book  is  repiinted, 
will  again  be,  enriched  with  extracts  which  will  make  the  '  Disce  Mori '  favwurably  known  to  our 
readers." — Churchman, 


Churchman's  Library. 


SACRA  PRIVATA: 

Tlie  Private  Meditations,  Devotions,  and  Prayers  of  the  Ri?ht  Rev.  T.  Wilson,  D.D  ,  Lord  Bishop  of 
Soderand  Man.     First  complete  edition.     1  vol,  royai  16mo  ,  elegantly  ornamented 

"  The  Messrs.  Appletnn  hive  bn>nt(lit  out,  in  elegant  style,  Wilson's  '  Siicni  Privala*  entire.  The  reprint  w  an  honour  to 
the  Aineriran  press.  Tlie  work  itself  is,  perhap-*.  on  the  wlmle.  tlie  be<it  devolinnal  treatise  in  the  language,  am)  it  now  ap- 
pears in  a  drer^s  worthy  of  its  character.  It  has  never  before  m  tins  <-ountry  been  prinleil  enttre.  We  sliall  eay  more  another 
time,  but  for  the  present  will  only  urge  upon  every  reailer,  from  tiiotive-^  tW"  duty  ami  iiiterf-*i,  for  private  benefit  and  public 
good',  to  6«y  the  book.     Buy  good  books,  shun  tlie  doubtful,  und  burn  the  bad."— A^fiy  York  Churchman. 

A  DISCOURSE  CONCERNING  PRAYER 

Vnd  the  frequenting  Daily  Public;  Prayers.  By  Symon  Patrick,  D.D.,  sometime  Lord  Bi.shop  of  Ely. 
Edited  by  Francis  E.  Paget,  M.A.,  Chaplain  to  the  Lord  Bishop  of  O.tford.  1  vol.  royal  lOino.,  ele- 
gantly ornamented. 

"This  work  treats  of  the  nature  and  neceasily  of  pr.iver,  of  tlie  sense  of  all  mankiml  about  this  matter,  e.specially  of  ou 
lle^aeJ  Saviour,  of  the  honour  di.ue  us  liy  God  in  adinittiuj;  ii»  into  Ins  pre.sence,  and  of  the  great  beiielUs  we  re.'tive  by  it.     I 
ebows  lliat  hublir  prayer  is  the  most  necessary  of  all,  that  God  is  most  bonnnred  by  it,  that  it  is  most  advantagKOUs  to  us,  and 
most  suilabl.'  lo  the  nature  of  man,  that  the  nature  of  a  Church  requires  it,  that  our  Saviour  has  taught  ibis  d<.ctrine,  which  is 
conlirnied  l.y  the  practice  of  the  Apostles  and  (irol  Chnsliaus  :  and  it  treats  of  daily  public  assemblies  and  hours  of  prayer. 

"  To  all  w'lo  have  been  benebted  and  instructed  by  Bishop  Patrick's  writinss  (that  is  to  all  who  have  with  due  rare  read, 
lind  ni'jditalel,  and  prayed  over  any  one  of  them)  it  is  unnecessaiy  to  say  a  word  in  commendatiou  of  the  work  before  us.  lo 
others  it  ma\  sullice  to  say.  that  the  sooner  they  make  themselves  master  of  this,  and  the  other  ailmirable  woks  of  his  lately 
reprinteo,  the  better  will  it  be  for  ihe  soundness  of  their  views  in  theology,  and  the  firmness  and  steadiness  of  their  growth  m 
piety  aud  Christian  virtue."— CAoWeKon  Gospel  Messenger- 

HEART'S  EASE  ; 

Or  aRemedv  against  all  Troubles,  with  a  Consolatory  Discourse,  particularly  addressed  to  those  who 
have  lost  ther  friends  and  dear  relations.  By  Symon  Patrick,  D.D.,  sometime  Lord  Bishop  ol  Jily. 
1  vol.  royal  16mo.,  elegantly  ornamented 

•'  1  would  siwest.  whether  there  ran  be  a  more  useful  present  than  a  gonj  book  ?  And  to  tho.se  who  think  with  me  in  this 
matter  I  woiibf  rrri.mmend  two  verv  pretty  volumes  in  external  appearanre,  whilst  they  are  most  excellent  m  their  contents 
Tliev  are  both  by  the  same  author,  B'isbop  Patrick,  the  one  '  On  Prayer,'  and  the  other  entitled  '  Heart's  Lase  :  or  a  Remedy 
acaiii-t  all  troubles.'  It  w.as  oh.served  by  the  distinguished  Cecil  that  he  had  a  shelf  in  his  hook.case  upon  which  be  wa.s  arcus- 
tomed  lo  place  '  tried  authors  ;'  that  is,  authors  whose  opinions  he  had  examined  and  judged  to  be  worthy  of  conhdence 
These  volumes  are  of  eiirh  a  chararter:  and  if  this  article  shall  be  read  by  one  who  is  willing  to  give  bis  friends  some  uselul  in- 
striiition  with  regard  to  the  nature,  dutv,  and  advantages  of  prayer,  in  .all  its  brani  hes,  he  will  lind  it  in  the  firslnamed  vol- 
nme:  or  if  the  rea.ler  lias  a  friend  in  affliction,  he  may  perhaps  relieve  the  s..rrowsof  the  openingyear  by  placing  in  the  handa 
ofthat  liiend  the  volume  entitled  '  Heart's  Ease.'  "—Vide  commumcalion,  Neio-York  Amcncan. 

THOUGHTS  IN  PAST  YEARS. 

A  beautiful  collection  of  Poetry,  chiefly  Devotional.  By  the  author  of  "  The  Cathedral."  1  vol. 
royal  IPmo.,  elegantly  printed 

"  This  is  a  new  Trans-atlantic  poetical  work,  and  allbougb  we  have  not  murh  rnnfulence  in  our  own  judgment  of  poetry.  vr« 
do  not  he-itate  to  ventuie  the  opinion  that  tins  book  is  l.y  no  means  to  be  ranked  with  .he  ephemeral  poetical  eflusions  of  the 
Jay.  It  IS  made  up  of  miscellaneous  poems,  all  of  tbem  of  a  moral  tendency,  and  many  ol  tbem  breathing  a  spint  of  deep  devo- 
tion and  earnest  piety."— .^f/tany  Advertiser. 

THE  CHRISTMAS  BELLS: 

A  Tale  of  Holy  Tide,  and  other  Poems.  By  the  author  of  "  Constance,"  "  Virginia,"  &c.  1  vol.  royal 
Ititno.,  elegantly  ornamented. 

*,*  These  volumes  will  be  followed  by  others  of  equal  importance. 


MAGEE  ON  ATONEMENT  AND  SACRIFICE. 

Discourses  and  Dissertations  on  the   Scriptural  Doctrines  of  Atonement  and  Sacrifice,  and  on  the 
Prmcp^l   Arguments  advanced,  and  the  Mode  of  Reasoning  emi^oyed  by  the  Opponents  of  those 
doctrities,  as  held  by  the  Established  Church.     By  the  late  Most  Rev.  WiUiam  Magee,  D.D.,  Arch- 
bi  hop  of  Dublin.     2  vols,  royal  8vo.    beautifully  printed. 
..  This  i«  one  of  the  ablest  critical  and  polemical  works  o^--':-  ^^t  ex^'lve'^;^  "o^:;;:^;^  ^"wW^'^d'o?^: 

l:::^:^^:\::t  :^:^:^  ^jiiZ^rz^::^::^^:^^^^^^^^  -^  -r.ety  \,i  top,cs  wb^h  the  Archbishop  br^s 

forward,  must  endear  his  name  to  all  lovers  of  Christianity."— Ormc. 

HARE'S  PAROCHIAL  SERMONS. 

Sermons  to  a  Country  f'ongregation.  By  Auaustus  William  Hare,  A.M.,  late  Fellow  of  New  College, 
and  R  cior  of  Alton  Barnes.     1  vol.  royal  8vo. 

■'  Any  one  who  ran  be  pleased  with  delirary  of  thought  expressed  in  the  mo.st  simple  langoage— any  one  who  can  feel  th« 
tharm  of  bndmg  practical  duties  elucidated  and  enforced  by  apt  and  varied  illustrations- will  be  delighted  with  this  volume, 
which  presents  us  with  the  workings  of  a  pious  and  bighly-gilted  mind."— Quaricr/t/  Keview. 

THE  GOLDEN  GROVE. 

A  choice  Manual,  containing  what  is  to  be  believed,  practised,  and  desired,  or  prayed  for;  the  prayers 

being  fitted  for  the  several  days  of  the  week.     To  which  is  added  a  Guide  for  tlie  1  enitent,  or  a. 

Model  drawn  up  for  the  help  of  devout  souls  wounded  with  sin.    Also  Festival  Hymns,  &c.    By 

the  Right  Rev.  Bishop  Jeremy  Taylor.    1  vol.  18mo. 

"  The  name  of  Jeremy  Taylor  will  always  be  a  sufficient  passport  to  any  work  on  whose  title  page  it  appears.  Of  no  writer 
of  his  period,  or  indeed  of  any  other  period,  could  it  be  more  truly  said,  that  he  has  given  '  thoughts  that  breathe  m  words  that 
burn.'  The  present  little  work  may  perhaps  be  regarded  as  among  the  choicest  of  his  productions.  U  bi  e  it  is  designed  to  be 
a  ™A  to  the  devotion,  it  breathes  murh  of  the  .!;)i>i(  of  devotion,  and  abounds  in  lessons  of  deep  practical  wisdom.  Its  author 
WHS  au  Episcopalian  and  Episcopalians  may  well  be  proud  of  bim  ;  but  his  character  and  writings  can  no  more  be  the  properW 
ofonedenominatioa  thaa  Ibe  air  or  the  light,  or  any  other  of  God's  uaiversal  blessings  to  the  world.  —JIbant/  Advtrlutr 


8  Theological  and  Ecclesiastical  Woy^ks. 


OGILBY  ON  LAY-BAPTISM. 

An  Outline  on  the  Argiiment  against  the  Validity  of  Lay-Baptism.'  By  tne  Rev.  John  D.  Ogilby,  A.M., 
Professor  of  Ecclesiasiical  History.     1  vol.  12mo. 

"  We  ran  but  acknnwleclf;e  the  receipt  of  this  volume,  on  a  suli'iect  that  hardly  falls  iinoer  the  range  of  our  criticism.  The 
author  wlio<e  iiaptisrii  i.l'two  peraone,  who  hail  previously  rerpivetl  lay.haptism,  hae  raised  a|;ain9t  him  no  little  outcry,  hai 
beenui'duiedto  wrile  tliese  pases  m  his  own  deleiiie,  and  has  set  I'onli  in  them  the  prinriples  and  reasons  which  have  governett 
bis  practice.    He  asks  lor  ihem,  what  we  doubt  not  Ihcj  will  receive,  a  patient  hearing."— iV.  1'.  Jma-ican. 

A  MANUAL  FOR  COMMUNICANTS  ; 

Or  the  Order  for  Adnfiinistering  the  Holy  Communion;  conveniently  arranged  with  Meditations  and 
Prayers  from  Old  English  Divines,  being  the  Eucharistica  of  Samuel  Wilberforce,  M.A.,  Archdea- 
con of  Surry,  (adapted  to  the  American  service.)     Convenient  size  for  the  pocket. 

*  *  This  work  is  dedicated  to  and  has  received  the  approval  of  the  Right  Rev.  Bishop  Onderdonk  of  the  diocese  of  New- 
York 


D.  APPLETON  &  COMPANY 

KEEP  CONSTANTLY  FOR  SALE,  ON  THE  MOST  FAVOURABLE  TERMS,  A  CHOICE 

STOCK  OF  WORKS  ON 

THEOLOGY  AND  ECCLESIASTICAL  HISTORY, 

Including  the  Sterling  Old  English  Divines  of  the  Sixteenth  and  Seventeenth  Centuries. 

Amono-  their  recnnt  importations  will  be  found  new  and  beautiful  editions  of 

REV.  JOSEPH  BINGHAM'S  Complete  Works,  with  all  the  Quotations.    9  vols.  8vo. 

BISHOP  BULL'S  Complete  Works.     8  vols.  8vo. 

DR.  ISAAC  BARROW'S  Complete  Works.    Svols.  8vo. 

Do  (Jo.  do.  Cheap  edition.    3  vols.  8vo. 

DR.  EDWARD  BURTON'S  Complete  Works.    5  vols.  8vo. 
BISHOP  BUTLER'S  Complete  Works.     1  vol.  8vo. 

RICHARD  BAXTER'S  Practical  Works,  with  Introductory  Essay.     4  vols.  imp.  8vo. 
JEREMY  COLLIER'S  Ecclesiastical  History  of  England,  with  copious  notes.     9  vols.  8vo. 
DR.  WM.  CAVE'S  Works,  edited  by  Carey.     5  vols.  8vo. 
DEAN  COMBER'S  Complete  Works.     7  vols:  8vo. 
W   CHILLINGWORTH'S,  M. A.,  Complete  Works.     1  vol.  Bvo. 
ARCHBISHOP  CRANMER'S  Complete  Works.     4  vols.  8vo. 
DR.  JOHN  DONNE'S  Complete  Works.    6  vols.  8vo. 
DEAN  GRAVE'S  Complete  Works,  edited  by  his  Son.     4  vols  8vo. 
BISHOP  HALL'S  Complete  Works.    12  vols.  8vo. 
BISHOP  HCRSELEY'S  Complete  Works.    8  vols.  8vo. 
BISHOP  HURD'S  Complete  Works.     8vols.  8vo. 
BISHOP  HORNE'S  Complete  Works.    4  vols.  8vo. 
BISHOP  HOPKINS'  Complete  Works.     1  vol.  imp.  dvo. 
RICHARD  HOOKER'S  Complete  Works.     2  vols.  8vo. 

j)o.  do.  edited  by  Keble.     Svols.  8vo. 

DR.  MATTHEW  HALE'S  Practical  Discourses  on  the  Liturgy.    4  vols.  8vo 
REV    W.  JOKES  (of  IMavland)  Complete  Works.     6  vols.  Svo. 
REV    CHARLES  LESLIE'S  Complete  Works.     7  vols  8vo. 
ARCHBISHOP  LEIGHTON'S  Complete  Works.     1  vol  Hvo. 

Po  do.  with  Life  by  Pearson.     2  vols.  8v» 

DR    NATHANIEL  LARDNER'S  Complete  Works.     10  vols.  Bvo. 
JOHN  HENRY  NEWMAN,  B  D.,  Parochial  Sermons  by.    6  vols.  8vo, 
BISHOP  PORTEUS'  Complete  Works.     6  vols.  8vo. 
BISHOP  REYNOLDS'  Complete  Works.     6  vols.  8vo. 
JOHN  STRYPE'S  Ecclesiastical  Memorials.    6  vols.  6vo. 

Do.  Annals  of  the  Reformation.     7  vols.  Bvo. 

DR    JOHN  SCOTT'S  Complete 'Works.    6vols  8vo. 
ARCHBISHOP  SHARPE'S  Complete  Works.    5  vols.  Bvo. 
BISHOP  SAUKDERSON'S  Sermons,  complete.     2  vols.  bvo. 
BISHOP  SHERLOCKE'S  Complete  V/orks.     6  vols.  Bvo. 
ARCHBISHOP  TILLOTSON'S  Complete  Works.     10  vols.  8vo. 
ARCHBISHOP  USHER'S  Body  of  Divinity.     1  vol.  Bvo. 
BISHOP  VAN  MILDERT'S  Complete  Works.     6  vols  Bvo. 
BISHOP  WARBURTON'S  Complete  Works.     13  vols.  Bvo. 

^ATmCIc'^LOv/TH'winTB^^  fn'd°  LOWMAN'S  Critical  Commentary  and  Para- 

phrase  on  the  Old  and  New  Testament  and  the  Apocrypha,  with  the  Text  at  large.    A  new 
edition,  at  one  half  the  original  cost. 

Also  the  beautiful  Paris  editions  of 
ST.  AUGUSTINI,  Opera  Omnia.    Complete  in  22  vols.  imp.  8vo.  _ 

ST.  CHRYSOSTOM,  Opera  Omnia,  Gr.  at  Lat.    Complete  in  26  vols.  imp.  8vo. 

D.  A.  A  Co.  are  constantly  receiving  all  the  important  Episcopal  publications  '"■'•"".Oxford  and  Lon- 
don.  Their  catalogue  of  English  Books  in  the  several  departments  of  literature,  methodically  arrang- 
ed, with  critical  notes,  can  be  had,  gratis,  on  application. 


A  TREATISE 


ON 


THE    CHURCH    OF    CHRIST. 


N  E  w  -  y  o  R  K : 

LUDWIG,      PRINTER, 
72,    Vency-slreet. 


A    TREATISE 


ON    THE 


CHURCH    OF    CHRIST: 

DESIGNED   CHIEFLY 

FOR  THE  USE  OF  STUDENTS  TN  THEOLOGY. 

I 

BY    THE 

REV.  WILLIAM  PALMER,  M.  A. 

OF  WORCESTER  COLLEGE.  OXFORD. 


WITH  A  PREFACE  AND    NOTES, 
BY  THE  liT.  REV.  W.  R.  WHUrTINGHAM,  D.D... 

Uiahop  ofUii  Protesta?it  Epif:cojial  Cliurch  in  the  Liioce^e   '/  Mfiri/lwd. 


J-RUM   THE    SECOND    LONDON   EDITION, 
IN    TWO    VOLUMES. 

VOL.    L 


N  E  W-Y  O  RK  : 

D.    APPLETON    &    CO.,    200,    BROAlJWAY. 

M  DCCC  XLI. 


vll   ^ 


I,  1  1'  M 


(h^^ 


<-!   \ 


TO 

THE    MOST    REVEREND    FATHERS    IN    GOU, 

WILLIAM, 

LORD     ARCHBISHOP      OF      CANTERBURY, 

PRIMATE      OF      ALL      ENGLAND: 
AND 

JOHN    GEORGE, 

LORD      ARCHBISHOP      OF      ARMAGH, 

PRIMATE      OF     ALL     IRELAND: 

THESE    VOLUMES 

ARE 

(with    their    graces'    permission) 
most    respectfully    and    gratefully 

inscribed. 


(,->,  fi  ■^-)  'T-  n  .1 


ADVERTISEMENT 

TO     THE     SECOND      EDITION. 

In  the  present  edition  of  the  Treatise  on  the 
Church  no  alterations  have  been  introduced,  with 
the  exception  of  a  few  merely  verbal  corrections. 
A  Supplement  however  has  been  added  in  reply 
to  various  objections  which  have  been  alleged, 
especially  from  unfulfilled  prophecy,  against  some 
portions  of  this  Treatise. 


PREFACE 

TO    THE    AMERICAN    EDITION. 

The  Editor  believes  the  republication  of  thei 
following  treatise  to  be  timely,  and  called  for  by  the 
turn  of  religious  inquiry  in  our  country.  For  some 
years  past  alarm  has  been  very  generally  felt  and 
expressed  at  the  growth  of  popery  among  us.  It 
matters  not  that  it  can  be  shown  to  be  the  result 
mainly  of  imported  men,  money,  and  members  ;  that 
its  extent  has  been  more  or  less  exaof^erated,  and  its 
dependencies  rated  quite  too  high ;  the  fact  that,  by 
importation,  by  education,  and  in  some  small  measure, 
by  conversions,  popery  is  spreading  in  our  land  in  all 
du'ections,  is  incontrovertible.  In  proportion  as  men 
really  know  what  popery  is,  and  where  its  strength 
lies,  they  see  cause  of  dread  in  its  present  position,  in 
contact  with  our  free  institutions,  our  restless  activity 
of  public  mind,  and  our  shallow  ignorance  of  the  true 
grounds  of  contest  between  Romanism  and  other 
forms  of  Christianity.  Nothing  so  effectually  puts 
one  in  the  power  of  a  subtle  proselyter,  as  ignorant 
prejudice  against  liira.  The  more  bitter  the  hate  in 
which  he  is  held,  the  more  sure  he  is  of  victory. 
One  plausible  explanation  after  another  puts  his 
antagonist  in  the  wrong,  by  the  verdict  of  his  own 
conscience.     He  feels  that  he  has  been  condemning 

VOL.  I. — 2 


X  PREFACE. 

what  was  perhaps  not  really  smful,  or  what  was  false 
in  fact,  and  dares  not  rely  on  his  own  judgment  on 
other  points  ;  or  perhaps  concedes  in  mass,  principles 
of  the  most  extreme  importance  together  with  his 
own  baseless  notions.  Many  know  popery  only  as 
the  use  of  certain  forms  of  worship  ;  or  at  most,  as 
the  profession  of  belief  in  transubstantiation,  and 
acknowledgment  of  the  pope  as  the  infallible  vicar 
of  God  on  earth.  Romish  books  of  controversy  and 
proselytism  are  full  of  the  most  plausible  statements, 
and  explanations,  and  disguisements  of  these  points. 
The  uninformed  reader  is  amazed  to  find  that  he 
has  been  all  in  the  wrong  with  regard  to  the  much- 
calumniated  adherents  to  what  he  is  taught  to  recog- 
nize as  the  "  old  faith."  Great  principles  are  brought 
forward — the  unity,  visibility,  perpetuity,  indefecti- 
bility,  of  the  church — its  authority  to  teach  and  rule 
— its  c'ommission  to  seal  the  redeemed  of  the  Lamb, 
which  he  cannot  but  admit,  and  to  which  he  has 
been  too  much  a  stranger.  These,  he  is  told,  are 
the  grounds  of  the  pretensions  of  the  "  mother  and 
mistress  of  churches."  The  recognition  of  these 
truths  is  all  that  is  required  of  him ;  by  virtue  of 
their  reception  he  becomes  her  child.  The  other 
differences  between  her  and  Protestants  grow  out 
of  these,  and  are  determined  by  them.  They  can 
be  made  easy  to  him,  if  he  will  but  return  to  his 
obedience.  He  professes  to  believe  m  "  one  Cathohc 
Church:"  let  him  but  make  his  belief  a  fact,  and 
become  a  "  Catholic.!'  Thus  is  truth  so  put  forth 
as  to  become.a  Jie,  and  the  basis  of  a  system  of  hes. 


PREFACE.  m 

A  corrupt  schism,  inseparably  linked  to  a  multitude 
of  damnable  and  deadly  errors,  is  palmed  upon  the 
unsuspecting-  proselyte,  under  a  name  which  it  has 
only  by  the  most  preposterous  assumption,  and  by 
the  use  of  arguments  which  might  be  turned  against  it 
with  ruinous  efficiency,  were  the  victim  but  aware  of 
the  true  nature  and  state  of  the  controversy. 

The  safety  of  Rome  lies  in  the  indifference  and 
iofnorance  of  Protestants  concerniho-  the  Catholic 
Church  of  Christ.  Once  let  that  article  of  the  uni- 
versal creed — "  one  holy,  catholic,  and  apostolic 
church"  be  generally  and  thoroughly  understood, 
and  the  usurper  of  an  unholy  lordship  over  God's 
heritage  shall  be  driven  back,  powerless,  to  the  narrow 
limits  of  his  own  true  jurisdiction ;  the  prestige  of  his 
usurped  authority  removed,  the  Scriptures  which  even 
now  he  is  unable  wholly  to  keep  from  his  people, 
will  defsecate  the  doctrine  of  his  subjects  ;  and  the 
many  valuable  remnants  of  primitive  simplicity,  and 
earnestness  and  zeal  which  still  survive,  like  sparks 
of  holy  fire,  amid  the  ashes  and  rubbish  of  -accumu- 
lated corruptions,  may  blaze  forth  to  give  light  and 
heat  and  the  vigour  of  life  to  those  purer  forms  of 
doctrine  wliich  are  now  too  like  the  Alpine  snows  in 
coldness  as  well  as  clarity. 

Romanists  well  know  that  it  is  not  in  this  or  the 
other  point  of  doctrine  or  practice  that  the  controversy 
between  them  and  the  Protestant  communities  lies. 
In  a  late  insidious  "  letter  on  Christian  Union,"  put 
forth  by  one  of  their  prelates,  it  is  plainly  stated  that 
"  without  the  recognition  of  the  principle  of  church 


Xll  PREFACE. 

authority  no  coincidence  in  special  doctrines  would 
secure  the  end"  of  union  among  the  different  denomi- 
nations, which  the  letter-writer  charitably  proposes 
to  accomplish  by  absorption  into  their  body  !  "  The 
unerring-  authority  of  the  Catholic  church  in  matters 
of  faith  being  once  admitted,"  he  says  again,  "  the 
union  would  be  easily  accomplished,"  It  is  a  season- 
able note  of  warning  to  Protestants,  for  which  they 
have  reason  to  be  thankful  to  the  giver.  Let  those 
who  are  set,  or  set  themselves,  as  teachers  among  us, 
look  to  it  that  they  are  themselves  so  well  instructed 
in  the  question  of  "  church  authority  "  as  to  be  able 
to  keep  the  people  on  their  guard  against  the  lessons 
which  Rome  and  her  emissaries  stand  ready  and  will- 
ing to  afford  them.  Popery  is  formidable  mainly 
because  its  advocates  and  sectaries  are  all,  to  a  certain 
degree,  trained  in  the  questions  which  this  work  dis- 
cusses, and  which  7nust  be  discussed  to  set  its  claims 
at  rest, — while  the  most  disgraceful  ignorance  or 
alarming  indifference  concerning  them  pervades  the 
rest  of  the  community.  The  Romish  clergy  are  learned 
on  these  points  almost  exclusively,  while,  whatever 
may  be  the  disparagement,  it  is  no  calumny  on  the 
ministers  of  the  Protestant  denominations  to  say  that 
they  are  as  generally  ill-informed  and  ill-furnished 
for  their  discussion. 

Nor  is  it  with  reference  to  popery  alone  that  the 
subject  of  this  treatise  is  important  to  our  times  and 
country.  The  monstrosities  in  religion  that  are  daily 
springing  up,  and,  m  some  instances,  spreading  with 
the  strangest  rapidity  on  our  soil,  aflbrd  good  reason 


■itr. 


PREFACE  XIU 

for  alarm  to  the  thoughtful.  Wliere  is  the  evil  to 
end  ?  How  is  it  to  be  checked  ?  are  questions  that  no 
serious  observer  of  the  state  of  religious  profession 
in  this  country  can  have  failed  to  ask  himself  Under 
the  power  of  God,  he  will  find  no  other  refuge  than 
the  authority  of  the  church — one,  unchanging,  sure, 
the  same,  inasmuch  as  it  is  that  of  the  body  of  Christ, 
to-day,  yesterday,  and  forever.  But  is  he  to  go  to 
Rome  to  seek  it^,  there  to  find  it,  with  Bishop  Ken- 
rick,  in  "  the  power  of  the  bishop  of  Rome,  as  suc- 
cessor of  St.  Peter,"  "  the  rock  on  which  the  whole 
edifice  of  Christianity  rests  in  immoveable  firmness  ; 
the  essential  centre  of  unity,  around  which  all  the 
faithful  mtist  gather  in  harmony  of  faith  and  obedi- 
ence V  He  will,  he  must,  unless  prepared  to  reject 
the  proffered  guidance,  by  an  acquaintance  with  that 
older,  and  firmer,  and  broader  basis  of  catholic  truth, 
which  this  book  will  help  him  to  discover. 

One  thing  such  an  inquirer  must  bear  in  mind,  and 
it  is  necessary  that  it  should  never  be  lost  sight  of 
in  the  discussion  here  offered, — that  such  a  process 
brings  the  church  into  an  unnatural  position,  the 
reverse  of  that  assigned  it  by  its  constitution — as 
being  sought,  when  its  office  is  to  seek.  The  investi- 
gator enters  on  his  work,  as  set  down  in  the  midst 
of  a  multitude  of  conflicting  sects  (Part  I.  Chap.  H. 
init.)  at  a  loss  to  decide  on  their  respective  claims,  and 
looking  for  the  grounds  of  such  decision ;  whereas 
the  designed  relation  of  the  individual  to  the  church 
is  that  of  a  learner  who  has  only  to  hold  fast  or 
reject  the  teaching  of  a  body  of  which  he  is  already 


XIV  PREFACE. 

a  member,  and  without  asking  whether  that  body  he 
a  teacher,  is  only  to  settle  wdiether  he  ought  or  ought 
not  to  adhere  to  its  teaching.  Undoubtedly  its  right 
to  teach  lies  at  the  bottom  of  his  inquiry;  but  it  was 
not  designed  to  come  up  :  the  question  for  liim  is  the 
truth  of  what  it  teaches,  as  well  with  regard  to  itself, 
as  to  all  other  revealed  truth. 

Otherwise  stated,  the  case  is  this  :  A  man  is  in  the 
world,  and  the  Church  comes  to  him,  with  her  message, 
and  her  credentials :  which  shall  he  do  first,  hear  the 
message,  or  examine  the  credentials  1  If  she  come 
alone,  the  first,  surely :  the  very  tenor  of  her  message 
would  be  a  test  of  her  credentials.  But  suppose  she 
do  not  come  alone :  the  credentials  must  be  tried,  to 
discriminate  the  true  «iessenger.  Would  not  the 
shortest  way  be,  to  settle  what  are  flaws  in  the  cre- 
dentials ?  since  the  probability  is,  that  one  or  more  of 
the  false  pretenders  (for  they  are  many,  but  the  true 
only  one)  will  first  present  itself.  This  is  to  be  done 
by  the  notes  of  the  Church.  They  are  negative  tests 
— not  that  which  gives  the  Church  its  authority ;  but 
those  things  of  which  the  absence  proves  a  pretender 
to  be  not  the  true  messenger. 

This  negative  character  is  very  observable  in  all  the 
notes  mentioned  by  our  author  (below,  j).  25.  s.)  as 
having  been  employed  at  various  times.  Against  the 
novelties  of  the  Gnostics,  Tertullian  appeals  to  anti- 
quity and  priority :  Irenseus,  against  the  multiplicity 
of  systems  and  spurious  derivations  of  the  same  family 
of  heresies,  to  the  one  faith  and  succession  of  the 
church :  and  all  these  notes  are  of  universal  use,  be- 


\  - 


PREFACE.  XV 

cause  all  heresy  and  schism  must  be  novel  and  of 
spurious  origm.  In  the  Donatist  controversy,  where 
both  parties  had  an  outward  succession  from  the 
apostles,  that  note  was  not  appealed  to. 

The  notes  employed  by  Xugustin  are  those  which 
served  him  to  detect  the  heresy  of  Manichseism, — 
Jerome  aro^ues  ao^ainst  the  recent  sect  called  after  its 
author — &c.  &c.  . 

The  value  of  these  several  tests  is  not  to  be  esti- 
mated singly.  No  one  may  be  sufficient  for  the  end : 
the  probability  is  rather  that  no  one  will  be  ;  that 
several  or  all,  may  be  required  completely  to  discri- 
minate the  one  true  claimant  to  be  the  channel  of 
Divine  goodness  from  all  false  pretenders.  Still  less 
may  any  one,  or  all,  be  expected  positively  to  establish 
the  claim  of  the  one  true  body  of  Christ  :  that  claim 
is  substantiated  by  the  refutation  of  the  others.  We 
who  have  Christ's  promise  to  be  always  with  us,  may 
rest  on  it,  content  and  thankful,  when  we  have  dis- 
proved the  Roman  tyrant's  claim  to  be  its  exclusive 
depositary,  and  ascertained  the  nullity  of  the  preten- 
sions that  swarm  around  us  from  other  quarters. 

In  a  treatise  of  such  extent  and  variety  of  toj^ics,  it 
could  hardly  be  expected  that  an  editor  should  adopt 
wholly  the  views  and  expressions  of  his  author.  He 
is  very  sensible  of  the  disparity  between  them,  and  yet 
has  freely  used  the  liberty  of  comment  which  editor- 
ship imphes ;  and  does  not,  even  now,  hold  himself 
responsible  for  all  that  he  has  suffered  to  pass  without 
remark.  In  many  places,  without  material  difference 
as  to  fact,  or  argument,  he  would  have   preferred 


XVi  PREFACE. 


another  tone  ;  in  others,  would  have  made  a  different 
choice  of  proof  or  ilhistration ;  but,  on  the  whole, 
deemed  the  disadvantages  of  scrupulous  attention  to 
such  points  more  than  compensatory  for  any  httle 
enhancement  the  value  of  the  work  micrht  receive 
from  the  unlimited  endorsement  of  an  editor.   -    ' 

Than  that  editor  none  can  be  more  deeply  grateful 
to  the  learned  and  laborious  author  with  whom  he  has 
presumed  to  take  such  freedoms.  If  anywhere  he  has 
chanced  to  see  further  or  more  clearly,  it  is  as  the 
pigmy  on  the  giant's  shoulder.  Everywhere  he  has 
found  cause  for  admiration  of  the  extent  and  depth  of 
research,  the  accuracy  of  learning,  and  the  clearness 
of  methodical  arrangement,  which  make  this,  as  the 
first  complete  treatise  on  the  subject  in  our  language, 
so  among  the  best  in  any. 

The  most  scrupulous  attention  has  been  given  not 
to  alter  word  or  syllable  of  the  original  text.  Every- 
thing added,  has  been  designated  by  brackets.  Even 
manifest  slips  of  the  pen,  in  two  or  three  instances, 
hate  beeil'Jret^ined  in  the  text,  with  the  addition  of 

bracketed  coiTections."  '•  • 

.    '       •  W.  R.  W. 

Baltimore,  ) 

Feast  of  St.  Barnabas,  1841.  5 


PREFACE 

TO   THE   FIRST    EDITION. 


In  presenting  to  students  in  theology  a  treatise  on  so 
extensive  a  subject  as  that  of  the  Christian  Church 
in  general,  it  seems  necessary  to  state  the  reasons 
and  the  objects  of  this  publication. 

To  contemplate  the  past  and  present  condition  of 
the  universal  church  of  Christ,  must  always  be  full 
pf  a  deej)  interest  to  those  who  believe  that  the  Son 
OF  God  came  into  this  world  to  establish  a  spiritual 
kingdom,  in  which  through  His  atonement  and  merits, 
salvation  should  be  obtained  by  the  faithful  of  all 
nations,  even  to  the  end  of  the  world.  The  fulfil- 
ment of  many  prophecies  of  holy  scripture,  and  the 
accomplishment  of  the  Divine  promises  and  the  Di- 
vine will,  are  involved  in  the  fate  of  Christianity. 

Nor  are  such  topics  merely  instructive  and  interest- 
ing to  a  contemplative  and  Christian  mind:  they  dis- 
close to  us  the  deep  responsibility  incumbent  on 
every  individual  Christian,  to  seek  for  the  Divine 
favour,  not  in  broken  cisterns  of  human  device  ;  but 
in  that  way  wherein  alone  Divine  grace  is  promised, 
and  wliich,  amidst  the  infirmities,  the  errors,  and  the 

VOL,  I. — 3 


XVlll  PREFACE. 

faults  inseparable  from  liuman  agency,  conducts  to 
eternal  life. 

In  addition  to  these  considerations,  which  would  in 
themselves  justify  an  attempt  to  examine  the  question 
of  the  church  in  its  full  extent,  the  alteration  of  cir- 
cumstances and  opinions  furnishes  another  reason  for 
this  undertaking-,  The  controversies  between  our 
churches  and  their  various  opponents,  have  been 
gradually  assuming  new  forms.  Fresh  theories  and 
arguments  have  been  devised ;  while  many  of  those 
ancient  errors  ag-ainst  which  the  masters  of  Anorlo- 
catholic  theology  contended  in  the  sixteenth  and  seven- 
teenth centuries,  have  been  permitted  to  sink  into 
oblivion.  One  class  of  separatists  has  ceased  to 
maintain  the  temporal  power  of  the  Roman  Pontiff, 
and  other  Ultramontane  doctrines  :  another  no  longer 
claims  a  divine  right  for  its  system  of  church-govern- 
ment ;  and  a  false  Liberality  has  arisen,  which  views 
truth  and  error  with  impartial  indifference,  and  opens 
the  way  to  Infidelity. 

Such  circumstances  will,  I  hope,  justify  the  publi- 
cation of  this  Treatise,  in  which,  avoiding  obsolete 
controversies,  and,  as  much  as  possible,  the  discussion 
of  the  particular  doctrines  of  Revelation,  it  has  been 
my  object  to  examine  the  origin,  signs,  privileges, 
powers,  relations,  and  existing  condition  of  the  Catho- 
lic Church,  and  of  all  sects,  and  to  supply  the  theolo- 
gical student  with  a  selection  of  arguments,  by  which 
he  may  be  enabled  to  defend  the  Churches  of  this 
realm  against  all  adversaries  whatsoever. 

It  has  been  my  endeavour  to  adapt  the  entire  system 


PREFACE.  XIX 

to  the  existing  state  of  controversy.  I  have  therefore 
carefully  examined  whatever  has  been  advanced  by 
our  opponents,  and  replied  to  every  thing  that  seemed 
v^^orthy  of  a  reply.  The  arguments  of  the  modern 
and  ancient  Roman  theologians  of  eminence,  espe- 
cially those  which  are  taught  in  their  seminaries, 
have  been  diligently  collected  and  refuted. 

This  work  being  designed,  not  so  much  for  general 
readers,  as  for  students  of  theology,  I  have  adopted  a 
mode  of  arrangement  and  division,  which  has  less  of 
a  popular  form  than  is  now  usual,  but  which  may 
contribute  to  the  clearness  of  the  argument,  and  to 
facility  of  reference.  I  have  avoided  the  multiplica- 
tion of  proofs  where  a  few  seem  sufficient,  and  have 
generally,  where  I  could  do  so  with  satisfaction,  re- 
ferred the  reader  to  works  where  additional  informa- 
tion may  be  obtained.  Nor  can  I  refrain  from  here 
acknowledging  the  advantages  which,  in  the  course 
of  this  publication,  I  have  derived  from  the  judgment, 
the  learning,  and  the  unwearied  kindness  of  my  friend, 
the  Rev.  Richard  Greswell,  Fellow  and  Tutor  of  . 
Worcester  CoUeg-e. 

In  a  treatise  comprehending  so  many  difficult  and 
important  questions,  I  cannot  expect,  notwithstanding 
considerable  care,  that  no  mistakes  or  inaccuracies 
have  escaped  my  pen :  but  as  I  hope  they  will  not  be 
found  numerous  or  material,  so  I  shall,  if  afforded  the 
opportunity,  endeavour  hereafter  to  supply  whatever 
corrections   and  amendments  may  seem  advisable. 

But,  I  would  add,  that  the  leading  principles  and 
conclusions  here  defended  are,  I  trust,  supported  by 


V, 


-3tX  '  PREFACE. 

such  proofs  as  cannot  be  overtlirown.  They  will  at 
least  show,  that  members  of  the  church  of  England 
are  not  obliged  to  take  the  attitude  of  dissenters  or  of 
latitudinarians,  in"  defending  themselves  against  Pa- 
pists ;  and  that  our  whole  system  of  argument  against 
all  sects  and  heresies,  is,  or  may  be,  harmonious  and 
consistent. 

I  now  commend  this  work  to  the  protection  of 
Almighty  God,  praying  that  it  may  confirm  the 
reader  in  an  enhghtened  and  devoted  adherence  to 
the  faith  and  the  communion  of  our  holy  churches ; 
and  that  it  may  increase  his  love  for  all  w4io  are  of 
the  household  of  faith,  his  charitable  forbearance 
towards  the  imperfect  and  feeble  members  of  Christ's 
church,  and  his  zeal  to  promote  the  glory  of  God  and 
the  salvation  of  man,  in  that  way  which  God  himself 
has  appointed. 

Oxford,  1838, 


CONTENTS  OF   VOL.  I. 


PART  I. 

THE    NOTES    OF    THE    CHURCH    APPLIED    TO    THE    EXISTING    COMMUNITIES    OF 

PROFESSING    CHRISTIANS. 

rf    .  r  *    '  ' 

PAGE 

CHAPTER  I.  ..........    27 

Sect.  i.       Definitions 27 

Sect.  ii.  On  the  Perpetuity  of  the  Church  .  .  .  ;  .  30 
Sect.  hi.  Of  Salvation  in  the  Church  only  .  .  .  .36 
Objections  .        .- .        .     43 

CHAPTER  n.       On  the  Notes  qf  the  Church  in  general  .        .     44 

CHAPTER  m.     On  the  VisibUity  of  the  Church      .        .        .        .    49 
Objections .         .58 

CHAPTER  IV.     On  the  Unity  of  the  Church  in  respect  of  Communion  63 
Sect.  i.        On  the  Obligation  of  External  Communion  .        .     63 

Sect.  ii.  On  Schism  and  Separation  from  the  Church  .  .  67 
Sect.  hi.     Whether  the  External  Communion  of  the  Church  can 

ever  be  interrupted .85 

Objections .         .97 

CHAPTER  V.     On  the  Unity  of  the  Church  in  respect  of  Faith       .     99 
Sect.  i.       The  Truth  revealed  by  Jesus  Christ  is  to  be  believed  by 

all  Cliristians 99 

Sect.  ii.      Heresy  excludes  from  Salvation  ....  101 

Sect.  hi.    All  Errors,'even  in  Matters  of  Faith,  are  not  Heretical  113 


XXU  CONTENTS. 

PAGE 

Sect.  iv.     Unity  in  Faith  considered  as  an  attribute  and  sign  of  the 

Church     .         .         .         .         .         .         .         .         .         .118 

Sect.  v.     Conclusions 122 

Objections        . •         •     122 

Appendix.     On  the  Doctrine  of  Fundamentals    ....     128 

CHAPTER  VI.     On  the  Sanctity  of  the  Church     .         .         .         .137 
Objections 149 

CHAPTER  VII.     On  the  Universality  of  the  Church     .         .         .150 
Objections       ..........     157 

CHAPTER  VIII.     OntheApostolicity  of  the  Church     .         .        .160 
Objections       ..........     174 

CHAPTER  IX.     On  the  Oriental  Churches     .'       .         .         .        .176 

Sect.  ii.     On  the  division  of  the  Eastern  and  Western  Churches     182 

Objections  of  Romanists 200 

Other  Objections 203 

< 

CHAPTER  X.     On  the  British  Churches 207 

Objections  of  Romanists      ........  233 

Objections  of  Dissenters 245 

Appendix.     On  Indifference  in  Religion     .         .         .        .         .  252 

CHAPTER  XL     On  the  Churches  of  the  Roman  Obedience    .         .    259 

Sect.  i.       Whether    the   Western    Churches    continued   to   be 

Churches  of  Christ  till  the  Reformation      ....     259 

Sect.  ii.      Whether  the  Churches  of  the  Roman   Obedience  con- 
tinued to  be  Churches  of  Christ  after  the  Reformation        .     265 

Sect.  hi.     Whether  these  Churches  constitute  exclusively  the  Ca- 
tholic Churrh  of  Christ 270 

Sect.  iv.     Societies   of  the  Roman   Communion    of  the   Modern 

Foundation 283 

Objections  answered 287 


CONTENTS.  XXIU 

PAGE 

Appendix  i.       On  Jansenism 298 

Appendix  ii.      On   Infidelity   and    Indifference    in    the    Roman 

Churches 319 

Appendix  III.     On  the  Schisms  of  1791  and  1801        .         .         .    324 
Appendix  iv.     The  Encyclical  Letter  of  Gregory  XVI.      .        .     330 

CHAPTER  XII.  The  Lutherans,  Zuinglians  and  Calvinists  .  .  333 
Sect.  i.  Wliether  the  Lutherans  separated  from  the  Church  .  333 
Sect.  ii.    Whether  the  Zuinglians  and  Calvinist«  separated  from 

the  Church 342 

Sect.  hi.     Whether  the  principles  of  the  foreign  Reformation  were 

subversive  of  Unity    .         .         ......     344 

Sect.  iv.     Whether  the  Lutherans,  Zuinglians,  and  Calvinists  were 

Churches  of  Christ         .         .         .         .         .         .         .352 

Sect.  v.      Whether  it  was  lawful  to  hold  any  religious  intercourse 

with  these  Societies  .......     359 

Objections 362 

CHAPTER  XIII.     On  the  Separatists  from  the  British  Churches    .  368 

Sect.  I.       On  the  origin  of  Dissent   .         .         .         .         .        .  368 

Sect.  ii.      On  Dissenting  Principles  as  affecting  Unity       .         ,  372 

Sect.  hi.     On  Dissenting  Principles  as  affecting  Sanctity  .         .  375 

Sect.  iv.     Dissent  not  Apostolical 381 

Objections 382 

CHAPTER  XIV.     On  the  Nestorians  and  Monophysites  .         .385 

t 

PART  II. 

ON    THE    BRITISH    REFORMATION. 

CHAPTER  I.     On  the  characters  of  the  temporal  promoters  of  the 
Reformation       ..........    395 

CHAPTER  II.     On  the  abolition  of  the  Papal  Jurisdiction,  and  the 

Schism 401 


XXIV 


CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER  III.     On  the  Ecclesiastical  Supremacy  and  acts  qf  the 
civil  power  during  the  reigns  of  Henry  VHI.  and  Edward  VI. 

CHAPTER  IV,     On  the  proceedings  in  the  reign  of  Mary 

CHAPTER  V.     On  the  proceedings  in  the  reign  of  Elizabeth  . 

CHAPTER  VI.     On  the  Principles  of  the  English  Reformation 

CHAPTER  VII.     On  the  Variations  of  the  English  Church     . 

CHAPTER  VIII.     On    the    character  and    conduct   of  Archbishop 

Cranmer  ..........     492 

CHAPTER  IX.     On  the  Reformation  and  Schism  in  Ireland    .         .    505 

CHAPTER  X.    On  the  Reformation  and  Schisms  in  Scotland         .    52S 


PAGE 

426 
442 
447 
454 
465 


.i) 


A 

TREATISE  ON  THE  CHURCH  OF  CHRIST. 


PART   I. 


THE  NOTES  OF    THE    CHURCH    APPLIED  TO  THE    EXIST- 
ING  COMMUNITIES  OF  PROFESSING  CHRISTIANS. 


VOL.  I. — 4 


V,  « 


A    TREATISE 

ON  * 

THE   CHURCH    OF    CHRIST. 


PART  I.— CHAPTER  I. 

DEFINITIONS. THE  PERPETUITY    OF  THE   CHURCH. SALVATION 

IN    THE    CHURCH    ONLY. 


SECTION     I. 

DEFINITIONS. 

The  term  ekkAhsia  which  wc  translate  "  Chu^h,"  is 
occasionally  employed  by  the  sacred  writers  in  senses  differ- 
ent from  those  which  we  connect  with  it ;  as  for  instance,  to 
designate  the  people  of  God  under  the  former  dispensation, 
or  even  to  express  any  public  assembly  :  with  these  meanings 
I  am  not  at  present  concerned.  Its  ordinary  application  in 
Scripture  is  to  a  society  of  Christians,  or  of  those  who  believe 
in  Christ.  God  himself  according  to  Scripture  has  "caZ/etZ" 
all  such  "  out  of  darkness  into  his  marvellous  light  ;"^  so 
that,  as  it  is  said  elsewhere,  "  It  is  not  of  him  that  willeth,  nor 
of  him  that  runneth,  but  of  God  that  showeth  mercy.'""  Thus 
the  church  of  Christ  is  not  formed  by  the  mere  voluntary 
association  of  individuals,  but  by  divine  grace,  operating  either 
by  miracle,  or  by  ordinary  means  of  divine  institution.  And 
this  seems  implied  in  the  very  word  EKKAHSIA,  derived  from 
EKKAAEIN,  "  to  call  forth." 

The  applications  of  this  term  to  the  Christian  society  are 
various. 

"  1  Pet.  ii.  9.  b  Rom.  ix.  16. 


1,      !■  ■ 

i28  DEFINITIONS.  [p.    I.    CH.    I 

1.  It  sometimes  means  the  whole  Christian  body  or  society, 
considered  as  composed  of  its  vital  and  essential  members,  the 
elect  and  sanctified  children  of  God,  and  as  distinguished  from 
those  who  arc  only  externally  and  temporarily  united  to  Christ. 
In  this  sense  we  may  understand  the  apostle  speaking  of  a 
"glorious  church,  not  having  spot,  or  wrinkle,  or  any  such 
thing.""  And  again  :  "  the  general  assembly  and  church  of 
the  first-born,  which  are  written  in  heaven."'^  It  is  generally 
allowed  that  the  wicked  belong  only  externally  to  the  church.^ 

2.  The  church  means  the  whole  society  of  Christians 
throughout  the  world,  including  all  who  profess  their  belief  in 
Christ,  and  who  are  subject  to  lawful  pastors ;  as  in  these 
passages  :  "  Give  none  offence,  neither  to  the  Jews,  nor  to  the 
Gentiles,  nor  to  the  church  of  God."''  "  God  hath  set  some 
in  the  church ;  first  Apostles,  secondarily  prophets,  thirdly 
teachers,"^  &c.  In  this  universal  church  are  many  lesser 
societi^  or  churches. 

3.  It  is  applied  to  the  whole  Christian  community  of  a  city 
and  its  neighbourhood;  thus  we  read,  "Unto  the  church  of 
God  which  is  at  Corinth"  (1  Cor.  i.  2.)  the  church  of  Jeru- 
salem is  mentioned  (Acts  viii.  1),  Antioch  (Acts  xiii.  1), 
Ephesus  (xx.  17),  Laodicea  (Col.  v.  16),  Smyrna,  Pergamus, 
Thyatira,  Sardis,  Philadelphia  (Rev.  ii.  iii.) 

4.  It  sometimes  means  a  Christian  family  or  a  very  small 
community  meeting  in  one  house  for  worship,  as  in  the  follow- 
ing passages:  "Greet   Priscilla  and  Aquila, likewise 

greet  the  church  that  is   in  their   house"   (Rom.  xvi.    35); 

c  Eph.  V.  27.  d  Heb.  xii.  23. 

e  Field  on  the  Church,  b.  i.  ch.  7,  8.  The  Romish  Theologians  gene- 
rally concur  in  the  same  doctrine.  Tournely  says,  "  solos  electos  ac  justos 
ad  nobiliorem  ecclesise  partem,  qus  anima  ipsius  dicitur  et  in  virtutibus 
consistit,  reprobos  vero  et  malos  ad  illius  dumtaxat  corpus,  hoc  est  externam 
fidei  professionem  ac  eorundem  sacramentorum  participationem  pertinere." 
Be  Eccl.  qu.  i.  art.  2.  See  also  Bailly,  Tract,  de  Ecclesia,  praenotata : 
Delahogus,  c.  1 ;  Collet,  Praelect.  de  Eccl.  qu.  1  ;  Bouvier,  part  iii.  c,  2. 
See  Chapter  VI.  of  this  Part. 

f  1  Gor.  X.  32.  «  1  Cor.  xii.  28.  " 


SECT 


.    1.]         (  DEFINITIONS.  29 


"  Aquila  and  Priscilla  salute  you  much  in  the  Lord,  with  the 
church  that  is  in  their  house  "  (1  Cor.  xvi.  19);  "  Nymphas 
and  the  church  which  is  in  his  house"  (Coh  iv.  1.5) ;  "  The 
church  in  thy  house "  (Philemon  2).  .       .    : 

5.  Since  the  Scriptures  speak  of  the  universal  church  in 
the  singular  number,  though  it  comprises  many  particular 
churches  ;  and  since  each  particular  church  is  so  called,  though 
it  includes  many  Christian  families  or  lesser  communities  of 
Christians  ;  we  on  the  same  principle  may  speak  of  "  the 
church"  of  England  or  of  France,  of  the  Eastern  or  the 
Western  church,  though  many  particular  churches  are  included 
under  each;  or  we  may,  with  equal  propriety,  say,  "the 
churches  of  Britain,"  or  "  of  France,"  &c.  This  latter  form 
is  indeed  used  in  Scripture  itself,  e.  g.  "  The  churches  of 
Galatia"  (1  Cor.  xvi.  1);  but  the  singular  form  is  justifiable 
from  the  usage  of  Scripture.^ 

1'  [It  is  not  to  be  denied  that  "  the  church  in  England,"  "  the  church  in 
France,"  or  "  the  church  in  America,"  may  be  spoken  of,  by  a  metonymy 
like  that  in  the  phrase,  "  the  church  in  the  house  "  of  such  a  one  :  the 
full  expression  in  the  first  instance  being  "the  (part  of  the  catholic)  church 
in  England,"  &c. ;  in  the  second,  "  the  (part  of  the)  church  (of  Rome, 
that  meets  for  worship)  in  the  house  of  Aquila  and  Priscilla,"  &c.  But 
"  the  church  of  England,"  or  "  of  France,"  is  a  less  accurate  expression, 
and  hardly  justifiable.  In  primitive  and  correct  language,  it  may  be  doubted 
whether  there  is  such  a  thing  as  a  national  church.  Pearson  (on  the 
Creed,  p.  332,  fol.)not  only  knows  nothing  of  it,  but  remarks  the  exclusive 
use  of  the  plural  in  Scripture,  whenever  the  believers  of  a  country  or 
region  are  spoken  of.  Barrow  (on  Church  Unity,  p.  2,  ed.  4to.)  has  it 
not  among  his  five  senses  of  the  term  "  church  "  ;  and  represents  (ib.  p. 
28,  43,  ss)  the  union  of  Christians  in  a  realm  or  nation,  as  a  confederation 
of  churches ;  such  confederations  being  made  for  wise  purposes,  and 
strongly  binding  on  the  members,  but  of  human  origin,  and  for  expediency 
only.     Bingham  knows  nothing  of  a  national  church. 

The  gradual  rise  of  the  power  of  the  metropolitan  probably  occasioned 
the  gradua,!  introduction  of  the  notion  of  a  body  of  which  the  metropolitan 
might  be  considered  as  the  head  ;  of  which  the  first  trace  is  discoverable 
in  Cyprian.  The  civil  establishment  and  modification  of  the  church  under 
Constantine  and  his  successors  developed  this  and  made  it  general.     In 


30  PERPETUITY  OF  THE  CHURCH.     [p.  I.  CH.  I. 

SECTION  TI. 

ON  THE  PERPETUITY  OF  THE  CHURCH. 

No  one  denies  that  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  founded  a  society 
of  men  professing  his  doctrines  on  earth.  That  he  did  so  is 
certain  from  his  own  words  :  "  On  this  rock  I  will  build  my 
church"  (Matt.  xvi.  18);  and  we  read  afterwards,  that  "The 
Lord  added  daily  to  the  church  such  as  should  be  saved" 
(Acts  ii.  47).  The  very  object  of  Christ's  mission,  and  of  his 
death,  was  to  "purify  unto  himself  a  peculiar  people"  (Tit. 
ii.  14),  whom  St.  Peter  describes  as  "  a  chosen  generation,  a 
royal  priesthood,  a  holv  nation,"  even  "the  people  of  God" 
(1  Pet.  ii.  9,  10).  The  intention  of  our  Saviour  was  to  estab- 
lish a  kingdom  upon  earth,  and  draw  all  men  unto  him  ;  and 
it  was  impossible  that  this  object  could  fail :  its  completion 
had  been  decreed  before  the  foundation  of  the  world  ;  it  had 
been  predicted  by  prophets,  and  the  Son  of  God  accomplished  it. 

It  is  needless  to  occupy  space  in  proving  what  is  generally 
admitted,  namely,  the  institution  of  a  society  of  Christians 
called  "  the  church,"  by  Christ  and  his  apostles ;  but  it  has 
been  inquired  whether  this  society  was  to  continue  always  in 
the  world. 

The  perpetuity  of  the  church  was  predicted  by  the  prophet 
Isaiah  in  these  words  :  "I  will  make  an  everlasting  covenant 
with  them  ;  and  their  seed  shall  be  known  among  the  Gentiles, 
and  their  offspring  among  the  people  :  all  that  see  them  shall 
acknowledge  them,  that  they  are  the  seed  which  the  Lord  hath 
blessed"  (Is.  Ixi.  8.  9).     The  prophecy  of  Daniel  is  still  more 

the  fifth  and  following  centuries,  the  bishops  of  Rome  found  it  expedient 
to  favour  the  then  prevailing  notion,  which  gave  substance  to  their  claims. 
From  the  time  of  Clovis  downward,  the  position  of  the  French  churches 
materially  aided  the  fiction.  Their  resistance  to  the  encroachments  of 
Rome,  made  the  Gallican  church  little  less  conspicuous  from  the  sixth  to 
the  fifteenth  century,  than  it  became  again  in  the  seventeenth,  or  than  the 
Anglican  church  appears  in  the  defences  of  its  liberties  against  papal 
usurpations,  since  the  reformation.] 


SECT.    II.]  PERPETUITY    OF    THE    CHURCH.  31 

clear :  "  In  the  days  of  these  kings  shall  the  God  of  Heaven 
set  up  a  kingdom  which  shall  never  be  destroyed  ....  and  it 
shall  stand  for  ever'"  (Dan.  ii.  44)'.     It  was  also  promised  by 
our  Lord  himself  on  several  occasions  :  "  On  this  rock  I  will 
build  my  church,  and  the  gates  of  hell  shall  not  prevail  against 
it  "  (Matt.  xvi.  18) ;  "I  will  pray  the  Father,  and  he  shall  give 
you  another  Comforter,  that  he  may  abide  with  you  for  ever ; 
even  the  Spirit  of  Truth"  (John  xiv.  16,    17);  "  Lo,    I  am 
with  you  always,  even   unto  the   end   of  the  world''''  (Matt, 
xxviii.  20).     These  remarkable  and  positive  promises  clearly 
establish  the  perpetuity  of  the   church  ;  and  it  may  be  also 
inferred  easily  from  the  promise  made  to  the  faithful  servant, 
whom  the*  Lord  should  set  over  his  household  :  "  Blessed  is 
that  servant  whom   his   Lord  when  he  cometh  shall  find   so 
doing "  (Matt.  xiv.  46)  ;  in  which  words  it  is  intimated,   that 
wdien  Christ  shall  come  in  the  latter  day,  he  shall,  even  then, 
find  faithful  servants  presiding  over  his  own  household,  still 
existing  upon  the  earth.     It  is  also  proved  by  the  words  of  the 
apostle  Paul,  in  describing  the  coming  of  Christ :   "  Then  ive 
which  are  alive  and  remain  shall  be  caught  up  together  with 
them  in  the  clouds,  to  meet  the  Lord  in  the  air,  and  so  shall  we 
ever  be  with  the  Lord"  (1  Thess.  iv.  17).     It  is  also  to  be 
deduced  from  the  parable  of  the  tares  and  the  draw-net,  in 
which  the  angels  of  God  are  represented  as  gathering  out  of 
his  kingdom,  still  existing  up  to  the  end  of  the  world,  all  the 
wicked  and  hypocrites  (Matt.  xiii.  41,  49). 

The  same  divine  love  which  caused  the  humiliation  of  the 
Eternal  Son,  that  a  new  people  might  be  gathered  from  all  na- 
tions, and  constituted  the  Church  of  the  living  God  ;  this  love 
would  most  assuredly  not  permit,  that  a  system  designed  for 
the  salvation  of  mankind,  should  after  a  time  entirely  cease. 
Man  is  always  in  the  same  need  of  divine  mercy,  and,  if  the 
church  of  Christ  was  originally  the  way  of  salvation,  and  God 
willed  that  all  men  should  receive  the  offer  of  salvation,  it  must 
be   supposed   that   the  church  once  founded  would  continue 

'  See  also  Ps.  xlviii.  3 .  Ixxxix.  29. 


32  PERPETUITY  OF  THE  CHURCH.      [p.  I.  CH  1. 

always,  because  the  Christian  dispensation  is  not  to  be  succeeded 
by  any  other.  If  it  were  supposed  indeed,  tliat  the  church  of 
.  Christ  had  no  promise  of  perpetuity  from  God,  and  might  have 
altogether  failed,  it  would  be  at  least  uncertain  whether  there  is 
any  church  of  God  now  existing  on  earth.  It  would  be  useless 
in  this  case  to  enter  into  the  investigation  of  controversies  be- 
tween different  sects,  because  all  might  alike  be  cut  off  from 
Christ,  and  from  the  privileges  granted  to  his  disciples.  And 
if  we  supposed  the  church  once  to  perish,  it  could  not  revive 
except  by  a  new  outpouring  of  divine  power  ;  for  God  alone 
can  call  men  to  be  the  disciples  and  members  of  Christ,  either 
by  miracle  or  by  ordinary  means  of  his  appointment ;  and  since 
in  case  of  the  failure  of  the  Church,  there  would  no  longer  be 
any  ordinary  means,  (for  the  Scripture  says,  "  How  shall  they 
hear  without  a  preacher  ?")  it  would  be  necessary  that  Chris- 
tianity should  be  revived  by  a  display  of  miraculous  power,  not 
inferior  to  that  which  accompanied  its  foundation.  And  if  the 
church  has  ever  failed,  and  there  has  been  no  such  outpouring 
of  the  Spirit  in  after-times,  it  must  be  concluded,  that  the 
Christian  revelation  was  designed  only  for  temporary  purposes, 
and  that  it  is  now  obsolete.  Such  are  the  conclusions  to  which 
those  must  be  led,  who  deny  the  perpetuity  of  the  church  or 
Christian  society. 

I  do  not  yet  enter  on  the  question  whether  the  church   of 
Christ  is  visible  or  invisible  ;  all  that  is  here  maintained  is,  that 
there  shall  always  be  a  church  of  Christ  in  the  world ;  that  the 
'■    Christian  society  shall  never  fail.    The  perpetuity  of  the  church 
is  indeed  in  some  sense  admitted  by  all  parties.     The  creeds 
which  are  received  by  the  infinite  majority  of  professing  Chris- 
tians, express  a  belief  in  the  existence  of  "  one,  holy,  catholic, 
apostolic  church,"  which  usage  can  only  be  founded  in  the 
doctrine,  that  the  church  was  always  to  continue,  for  why  other- 
wise  should  men  profess  their  belief  in  the  existence  of  the 
church  as  an  article  of  the  faith  1     We  find  that  such  a  belief 
was  universal  amongst  Christians  from  a  very  remote  period. 
St.  Athanasius  says :  "  The  word  is  faithful,  the  promise   is 


(SECT.  II.]        PERPETUITY  OP  THE  CHURCH.  33 

unshaken,  and  the  church  is  invincible,  though  the  gates  of 
hell  should  come,  though  hell  itself,  and  the  rulers  of  the  dark- 
ness of  the  world  therein  be  set  in  motion."'^  His  immediate 
predecessor  in  the  see  of  Alexandria,  St.  Alexander,  had  taught 
the  same  doctrine  :  "  We  confess  one  and  only  one  catholic 
and  apostolic  church,  never  to  be  destroyed,  though  the  whole 
world  should  war  against  it."^  Eusebius  observes  that  the 
Lord  "  foretold  that  not  only  his  doctrines  should  be  preached 
throughout  all  the  inhabited  world,  for  a  testimony  to  all 
nations,"  but  "  that  his  church,  afterwards  composed  of  all 
nations  by  his  power  .  .  .  should  be  invincible,  unconquerable, 
and  never  to  be  overcome  even  by  death."™  "  Hence,"  says 
Jerome,  "  we  understand,  that  the  church  may  indeed  be 
assailed  by  persecutions  to  the  end  of  the  world,  but  cannot  be 
subverted  ;  may  be  tempted  but  not  overcome  :  and  this  will  be 
because  the  Lord  God  Almighty,  the  Lord  God  of  the,  church, 
has  promised  that  he  will  do  so,  whose  promise  is  the  law  of 
nature.""  Augustine  confirms  the  same  truth  :  "  The  church 
shall  not  be  overcome,  it  shall  not  be  rooted  up,  nor  shall  it  yield 
to  any  temptations,  until  the  end  of  this  world  shall  come,  and 
we  shall  be  received  from  this  temporal  to  an  eternal  habitation."" 

k  ri/iTTOc  0  Myo;,  Kit  do-aXJuToc  >J  C'Tria-y^iTt;,  m)  «  ixuKy.a-ii.  Jd'ttdto?,  xctv  (jttTcu  ttuku 
iviyivcvvTXt.  H'jiv  o  ^cTxc  tti/rU  ich>tS-j,  x.jv  u  h  xi/t)  Ki^/u'.K^xToei:  tov  a-x.^Tau; — Athan. 
Oratio,  quod  unus  sit  Christus,  torn.  ii.  p.  51,  opev.  Benedict. 

I  M/av  x,t)  juov>iv  mSokiKriv  tjSv  i7rci<rT0hiiiyiv  luaKy.vw,  CKidtigiTcv  fAtiv  I'e),  k^'V  Trlri 

Ko<rf4i(  cLvri  TTohtfjiih  ^ouxmtai. — Alcxandri  Epist.  ad  Alex.  Const.  Theodoret., 
lib.  i.  c.  iv.  « 

K.  T.  A, — Eusebii  Praepar.  Evang.,  lib.  i.  c.  3. 

"  "  Ex  quo  intelligimus  Ecclesiam  usque  ad  finem  mundi  concuti  quidem 
persecutionibus,  sed  nequaquam  posse  subverti  :  tentari,  non  superari.  Et 
hoc  fiet,  quia  Dominus  Deus  omnipotens,  sive  Dominus  Deus,  ejus,  id  est, 
Ecclesiffi,  se  facturum  esse  pollicitus  est ;  cujus  promissio  lex  naturae 
est."  Hieronymus,  Comment,  in  Amos,  ad  finem,  torn.  iii.  p.  1454.  ed. 
Benedict. 

°  "  Non  vincetur  Ecclesia,  non  eradicibitur,  nee  cedet  quibuslibet  tenta- 
tionibus,  donee  veniat  hujus  saeculi  finis,  et  nos  ab  ista  temporali  iEterna  ilia 
VOL.  I» — 0 


34  PERPETUITV  OF  THE  CHURCH.     [p.  1.  GH.  1. 

It  is  needless  to  multiply  quotations  from  the  more  ancient 
Christian  writers,  in  testimony  of  tiie  general  l)elief  of  profess- 
ing Christians,  that  the  church  of  Christ  was  to  exist  always  on 
earth.     The  Nicene  and   Apostles'  Creeds  have  been  already 
alluded   to   as  intimating  this    doctrine,  and   they  have    been 
accepted  not  only  by  all  ancient  societies  of  Christians,   but 
even  by  those  of  modern  formation.     The  Reformation  made 
no  alteration  in  this  respect,  and  Bellarmine  admits,  that  many 
of  the  Romish  theologians  had  taken  much  needless  pains,  in 
proving  against  their  opponents  the  perpetuity  of  the  church, 
which  none   of  them  denied. p     The  confession  of  Augsburgh 
expressly   maintains   it.     "  Item  decent,  quod  sancta  ecclesia 
perpctuo    mansura    sit."i      The    Helvetic    Confession    says, 
"  Since  God  from  the  beginning  wished  men  to  be  saved,  and 
to  come  to  the  knowledge  of  the  truth,  there  must  always  have 
been,  and  now,  and  even  to  the  end  of  the  world  be,  a  church, 
that  is  a  congregation  of  faithful  men  called  forth  or  collected 
from  the  world  ;  a  communion  of  all  the  holy  ;  of  those  who 
truly  know  and    rightly  vi^orship  the  true  God  in   Christ  the 
Saviour,  by  the  Word  and  Holy  Spirit,   and   who  partake  by 
faith  of  all  the  benefits  freely  offered    through   Chrisf,"  &c. 
Calvin   argues  that  God  preserves  his   church  in   every  age. 
"Although,"  he  says,  "  immediately,  even  from  the  beginning, 
the  whole  race  of  mankind  was  corrupted  and  vitiated  by  the 
sin  of  Adam,  yet  from  this  polluted  mass  he  always  sanctified 
some  vessels  unto  honour,  lest  there  should  be  any  age  which 
did   not  experience  his  mercy.     Which  also    he  testified   by 
certain  promises  such  as  these  :  '  I  have  made  a  covenant  with 
my  chosen,  I  have  sworn  imto  David  my  servant,  thy  seed  will 
I  establish  for  ever,  and  build  up  thy  throne  to  all  generations' 
(Ps.  Ixxxix  3,  4).      Again  :     '  The  Lord   hath  chosen  Zion  ; 


habitatio  suscipiat.''     August.  Enarr.  in  Ps.   Ix.  torn.  iii.  p.  587.  oper.  ed. 

Benedict.        ;  :  :-  ■ 

p  Bellarm.  de  Conciliis  ct  Ecclesia,  lib.  iii.  c.  13. 

q  Art.  vii. 

'  Conf.  Helvetic,  a.  d.  1536.  cap.  17. 


SECT.   11.]  PERPETriTY    OF    THE    CHCTICH.  36 

he  hath  desired  it  for  his  habitation.  This  is  my  rest  forever"' 
&c.  (Ps.  cxxxii.  13,  14.)^  In  fine,  almost  all  professing 
Christians  regard  their  respective  communities  as  churches  of 
Christ,  and  endeavour  to  prove  them  to  be  so  ;  whence  it  must 
be  supposed  that  they  assume  as  a  principle,  that  such  church- 
es were  always  to  exist.  The  modern  dissenters,  in  their 
"  Library  of  Ecclesiastical  Knowledge,"  say,  "  we  cannot 
doubt  that  in  this,  as  in  every  'preceding  age,  such  a  church 
exists."^  In  the  following  section  additional  proof  will  be  fur- 
nished of  the  general  agreement  on  this  subject,  from  the  fact 
that  all  parties  admit,  that  the  church  of  Christ  is  the  way  of 
salvation. 

Tiie  English  church  expresses  her  belief  in  the  existence  of 
the  church  in  the  Apostolic  and  Nicene  Creeds  ;  and  the  Arti- 
cles also  invariably  speak  of  the  church  as  still  existing.  In 
the  hymn  '  Te  Deum,'  the  prayer  for  the  church  militant,  and 
many  other  parts  of  the  ritual,  the  existence  of  the  church  is 
always  recognized.  This  can  only  arise  from  a  belief  that  the 
church  was  to  be  perpetual  b)'  the  divine  promises.  Nowell 
observes  that  we  profess  our  belief  in  the  church,  "  because 
unless  there  be  a  church,  Christ  would  have  died  in  vain,"  and 
all  which  relates  to  the  causes  and  foundations  of  salvation 
would  be  in  vain  and  reduced  to  nothing,  for  the  effect  of  them 
is,  that  there  is  a  church,  a  certain  blessed  city  and  common- 
wealth, in  which  we  ought  to  deposit  and  consecrate  all  that  is 
ours,  and  to  which  we  should  give  ourselves  wholly  up,  and 
even  die  for  it"."  Field  assumes  the  perpetuity  of  the  church, 
to  be  the  general  doctrine  of  the  Reformation.''  Bishop  Pear- 
son says  :  '•  Though  the  providence  of  God  doth  suffer  many 
particular  churches  to  cease,  yet  the  promise  of  the  same  God 
will  never  permit  that  all  of  them  at  once  should  perish.  When 

•  Calvin.  Institut.  iv.  c.  i  s.  17. 

-t  Tract  on  the  Christian  Ministry,  Library  of  Eccl.     Knowledge,  vol, 
ii.  p.  355. 

u  Noelli  Catechismus,  p.  101.    Oxford  ed.  1835„ 
»  Field,  Of  the  Church,  b.  i.  c.  10, 


36  SALVATION    IN    THE    CHURCH  ONLY.       [P.  I.  CH.  I. 

Christ  spake  first,  particularly  to  St.  Peter,  he  sealed  his  speech 
with  a  powerful  promise  of  perpetuity,  saying,  'Thou  art 
Peter,  and  upon  this  rock  will  I  build  my  church,  and  the  gates 
of  hell  shall  not  prevail  against  it.'  (Matt.  xvi.  18).  When 
lie  spake  generally  to  all  the  rest  of  the  apostles  to  the  same 
purpose.  ...  he  added  a  promise  to  the  same  effect ;  '  and  lo,  I 
am  with  you  always,  even  to  the  end  of  the  world.'  .  .  . 
"Wherefore  being  Christ  doth  promise  his  presence  unto  the 
church,  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world,  he  doth  thereby  assure 
us  of  the  existence  of  the  church  until  that  lime,  of  which  his 
presence  is  the  cause"'." 

SECTION  III. 

OP  SALVATION   IN    THE    CHURCH    ONLY. 

The  Christian  revelation  is  so  far  necessary  to  be  believed 
by  those  \.6  whom  it  is  proposed,  that  our  Lord  himself  affirms 
of  such  :  "  he  that  believeth  not  shall  be  damned."  How  far 
the  unsearchable  goodness  and  mercy  of  God  may  provide 
some  means  of  escape  for  those  who  are  beyond  the  illumina- 
tion of  the  Gospel,  we  know  not:  for  the  Revelation  of  God 
only  offers  salvation  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ.  But  faith  in 
the  infinite  justice  and  mercy  of  God  will  inspire  hope  even 
where  revelation  is  silent ;  and  the  apostolic  principle,  "  them 
that  are  without  God  judgeth,"  will  teach  us  not  to  condemn 
those,  to  whom  the  way  of  life  has  not  been  pointed  out.  On 
the  same  principles  I  maintain  that  salvation  is  only  offered  in 
the  church  of  Christ  by  divine  revelation,  and  that  all  men  to 
whom  the  Gospel  is  preached  must  be  members  of  this  church 
when  sufficiently  proposed  to  them,  on  pain  of  being  excluded 
from  the  favour  of  God  for  ever. 

That  salvation  is  only  to  be  obtained  in  the  church,  may  be 
argued  from  Scripture  ihus  :  "  Christ  is  the  head  of  the  body, 
the  church"  (Col.  i.  18),  therefore  those  who  are  separated 
from  the  church  of  Christ  are  separated  from  his  body,  and 

"  Pearson,  on  the  Creed,  art  is. 


5ECT.  III. J  SALVATION    IN    THE    CHURCH    ONLY.        ,  37 

from  himself.  Now  "if  any  man  abide  not  in  Christ,  he  is 
cast  forth  as  a  branch,  and  is  withered  ;  and  men  gather  them 
and  cast  them  into  the  fire  and  they  are  burned''  (John  xv.  6). 
We  are  taught  that  "  Christ  is  the  Saviour  of  the  body,"  that 
is,  of  "  the  church"  (Ephes.  v.  23).  He  is  only  said  to  save 
the  church  :  there  is  no  promise  beyond  it.  It  is  said  that 
"  without  faith  it  is  impossible  to  please  God"  (Heb,  xi.  6) ; 
but  "  how  shall  men  believe  in  him  of  whom  they  have  not 
heard  ?  And  how  shall  they  hear  without  a  preacher,  and  how 
shall  they  preach  except  they  be  sent?'"'  (Rom.  x.  14,  15). 
Therefore  there  is  ordinarily  no  faith  and  no  salvation  except 
through  the  teaching  of  God's  ministers  ;  but  these  ministers 
are  only  in  the  church.  "  God  hath  set  some  in  the  church  ; 
first,  apostles  ;  secondarily,  prophets  ;  thirdly  teachers,"  &c. 
(1  Cor.  xii.  28).  In  fine,  this  doctrine  is  directly  taught  in  the 
following  passage :  "  The  Lord  added  to  the  church  daily 
such  as  should  he  saved''  (Acts  ii.  47).  Therefore  the  way  of 
salvation  is  by  divine  appointment  to  be  found  in  the  church  only. 
Such  indeed  has  been  at  all  times  the  tradition  of  the  Chris- 
tian community.  Theophilus  of  Antioch  says  :  "  God  hath 
given  unto  the  world  troubled  with  waves  and  storms  throuo"h 
sin,  those  congregations  called  holy  churches,  in  which,  as  in 
secure  island  havens,  the  truth  is  taught ;  where  those  who 
desired  salvation  take  refuge."^  Origen  says  :  "  Let  no  one 
persuade  himself,  let  no  one  deceive  himself:  without  this 
house,  that  is,  without  the  church,  no  one  is  saved.">'  The 
martyr  Cyprian  says  :  "  That  man  cannot  have  God  for  his 
father  who  has  not  the  church  for  his  mother.  If  any  one 
could  escape  the  deluge  out  of  Noah's  ark,  he   who  is  out  of 

Tcnv  Taf  (Turi'yaiya.;  y^fyo/Aivti;  iKKKHT'ini  ayix;,  iv  aicjttSaTiJ  hi/ui^iv  ijiffAOi;  iv  vnVo;? 
ai  ^tS'i.a-Ki.Mi  tint  li^jjti'xc  iWf  Trpi;  9c  x-xra.'^i-jyovTiv  oi  6«AovT«r  o-^^itBxi. — Theo- 
phil.  Antioch.  ad  Autolycuin,  lib.  ii.  p.  123  ed.  Paris,  1624. 

y  ''  Nemo  ergo  sibi  persuadeat,  nemo  semetipsum  decipiat :  extra  banc 
domum,  id  est  extra  ecclesiam  nemo  salvatur.'" — Origen.  in  lib.  Jesu  Nave 
Hum.  iv.  torn.  ii.  p.  4 14.  oper.  ed.  Ben. 


88  SALVATION    IN   THE    CHmCH    ONLY.       [p.  1.  CH.  I.' 

the  church  may  also  escape."^  "  He  cannot  be  a  martyr  who 
is  not  in  the  church,  he  cannot  come  to  the  kingdom,  who  de 
sorts  that  which  is  to  reign."^-  Augustine  continues  the* chain 
of  tradition  thus  :  "  No  one  cometh  1o  salvation  and  eternal  life, 
except  he  who  hath  Christ  for  his  Head  ;  but  no  one  can  have 
Christ  for  his  Head,  except  he  that  is  in  his  body,  the  church."'' 
Fulgentius  observes,  that  "  Without  ihis  church  neither  doth 
the  name  of  Christian  help  in  any  degree,  nor  doth  baptism 
save,  nor  is  a  clean  sacrifice  offered  to  God,  nor  is  remission  of 
sins  received,  nor  is  the  felicity  of  eternal  life  found.""  These 
are  indeed  the  sentiments  of  a'l  the  fathers  and  doctors  of  the 
church.  I  shall  only  add  the  testimony  of  two  councils.  The 
synod  of  Zerta  (a.d.  412)  said:  "Whosoever  is  separated 
from  this  catholic  church,  however  innocently  he  may  think  he 
lives  ;  for  this  crime  alone,  that  he  is  separated  from  the  unity 
of  Christ,  will  not  have  life,  but  the  wrath  of  God  remaineth  on 
him."''  The  fourth  council  of  Carthage  (a.d.  398)  directed,  that 
every  bishop  before  his  ordination,  should  be  questioned,  "  whe- 
ther he  believes  that  there  is  no  salvation  beyond  the  church."^ 

*  "  Habere  jam  non  potest  Deum  Patrem,  qui  ecclesiam  non  habet 
matrem.  Si  potuit  evadere  quisquam  qui  extra  aream  Noe  fuit ;  et  qui 
extra  Ecclesiam  foris  fuerit,  evadit '' — Cypr  de  Unit.  p.  254,  ed.  Pamel. 

a  "  Esse  martyr  non  potest,  qui  in  ecclesia  non  est :  ad  regnum  pervenire 
non  poterit,  qui  earn  quae  regnatura  est,  derelinquit." — Ibid.  p.  257. 

b  "  Ad  ipsam  vero  salutem  ac  vitam  geternam  nemo  pervenit,  nisi  qui  habet 
caput  Christum.  Habere  autem  caput  Christum  nemo  poterit,  nisi  qui  in 
ejus  copore  fuerit,  quod  est  ecclesia." — August,  cont.  Donatist.  Epist.  vul- 
go  de  Unit.  Eccl.  torn.  ix.  p.  392.  ed.  Benedict. 

c  "  Extra  hanc  ecclesiam  nee  Christianum  nomen  aliquem  juvat,  nee 
baptismus  salvat,  nee  mundum  Deo  sacrificium  offertur,  nee  peccatorum 
remissio  accipitur,  nee  aeternae  vitae  faelicitas  invenitur." — Fulgentius,  de 
Remissione  Peccatorum,  lib.  i.  c  22. 

''  '■  Quisquis  ergo  ab  hac  Catholica  ecclesia  fuerit  separatus,  quantumlibet 
laudabiliter  se  vivere  existimet,  hoc  solo  scelerc,  quod  a  Christi  unitate  dis- 
junctus  est,  non  habebit  vitam,  scd  ira  Dei  manet  super  eum.''^ — Concil. 
Zertense,  Harduini  Concilia,  torn  i.  p.  1203. 

t  ''  Quaerendum  etiam  ab  eo  .  .  .  .  si  extra  ecclesiam  catholicam  nullus 
salvetur." — Cone.  Carthag.  iv.  cap.  i.  Harduini  Concilia,  torn.  i.  p.  978. 


SECT.  III.]  SALVATION    IN    THE    CHURCH    ONLY.  "39 

We  are  not  lo  suppose,  that  this  was  the   opinion  of  Chris- 
tians in  the  primitive  ages  only  :  it  has  been  generally  admitted 
in  later  times.     The  doctrine  of  salvation  in  the  church,  was 
lield  by  all  the  Lutherans  and  Reformed,  and  by  the   sects 
which  separated   from  them  ;    as  well  as  by  the  Roman   and 
other  churches.     Luther  teaches,   that  remission  of  sins   and 
sanctification  are  only  obtained  in  it ;  and  Calvin  says,  "  beyond 
the  bosom  of  the  clnu'ch  no  remission  of  sins  is  to  be  hoped  for, 
nor  any  salvation  "^     The  Saxon   confession  presented  to  the 
synod  of  Trent,  1551,^  the  Helvetic  confession,^  the  Belgic,* 
the  Scottish,*^  all  avow  that   salvation  is  only  to  be  had  in  the 
church.     The  Presl)yterian  Divines  assembled  at  Westminster, 
A.D.  1647,  in  their  "  Humble  Advice  concerning  a  Confession 
of  Faith,"  (chap,  xxv.)  declare  that  "the  visible  church  which 
is  also  Catholique  or  Universal  under  the  Gospel  (not  confined 

f  Luther,  speaking  of  the  church,  says,  "  extra  hanc  Christianitatem, 
ubi  huic  evangeho  locus  non  est,  neque  ulla  est  peccatorum  remissio,  que- 
madmodum  nee  ulla  sanctificatio  adesse  potest." — Catechismus  Major,  P. 
ii.  Symbol.  Apost.  art.  iii.  "  Quia  nunc  de  visibili  ecclesia  disserere  pro- 
positum  est,  .  .  .  [non  alius  est  in  vitam  ingi-essus  nisi  nos  ipsa  concipi- 
at  in  utero,  nisi  pariat,  nisi  nos  alat  suis  uberibus,  denique  sub  custodia  et 
gubevnatione  sua  nos  tueatun  donee  exuti  carne  morlali,  similes  erimus 
angelis  .  .  .  .  ]  Extra  ejus  gremium  nulla  est  speranda  peccatorum  remissio, 
nee  ulla  salus,  teste  lesaia  (37,  32)  et  Joele  (2,  32) ;  quibus  subscribit 
Ezechiel  (13,  9),"  etc— Calvin.  Institut.  iv.  1.  [4.] 
g  Conf.  Sax.,  art.  xii.  De  eccl. 

^  "  Communionem  vero  cum  ecclesia  Christi  vera  tanti  facimus,  ut  ne- 
gemus  eos  coram  Deo  vivere  posse,  qui  cum  vera  Christi  ecclesia  non  com- 
municant, sed  ab  ea  se  separant ;  nam  ut  extra  arcam  Noe  non  erat  ulla  salus 
.  .  .  ita  credimus,  extra  Christum,  qui  se  electis  in  ecclesia  fruendum  pra?- 
bet,  nullam  esse  salutem  certam." — Conf.  Helvet.,  art.  xvii.  de  Ecclesia. 

i  "  Credimus  quod  cum  ....  extra  eam  nulla  sit  salus,  neminem  .... 
sese  ab  eo  subducere  ut  aeipso  contentus  separatim  degat :  sed  omnes  pari- 
ter  teneri  huic  se  adjungere,  eique  uniri,  Ecelesiae  unitatem  conservare," 
&c. — Conf  Belgica,  art.  xxviii. 

'^  "  Extra  quam  Ecclesiam  nee  est  vita,  nee  ceterna  felicitas." — Conf. 
Scot.,  axt.  xvi. 


40  SALVATION    IN    THE    CHURCH    ONLY.         [p.  I.  CH.  I. 

to  one  nation  as  before  under  the  Law),  consists  of  all  those 
throughout  the  world  that  profess  the  true  religion,  together 
with  their  children  :  and  is  the  kingdom  of  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  the  house  and  family  of  God,  out  of  which  there  is  no 
ordinary  possibility  of  salvation.''''^  The  Independents  admit- 
ted the  same.  Dr.  Owen,  their  principal  writer,  says  :  "  It  is 
required  that  we  believe  that  the  Lord  Christ  hath  had  in  all 
ages,  and  especially  hath  in  that  wherein  we  live,  a  church  on 
the  earth,  confined  unto  no  places  nor  parties  of  men,  no  em- 
pires nor  dominions,  or  capable  of  any  confinement;  as  also 
that  this  church  is  redeemed,  called,  sanctified  by  him  ;  that  it 
is  his  kingdom,  his  interest,  his  concernment  in  the  world ; 
that  thereunto  all  the  members  of  it,  aJl  the  promises  of  God 
do  belong  and  are  confined  ;  that  this  church  he  will  save,  pre- 
serve, and  deliver  from  all  oppositions,  so  as  that  the  gates  of 
hell  shall  not  prevail  against  it ;  and  after  death  will  raise  it 
up,  and  glorify  it  at  the  last  day.  This  is  the  faith  of  the 
catholic  church  concerning  itself;  which  is  an  ancient  funda- 
mental article  of  our  religion.  And  if  any  one  deny  that  there 
is  such  a  church,  called  out  of  the  world,  separated  from  it, 
unto  which  alone,  and  all  the  members  of  it,  all  the  promises 
of  God  do  appertain  in  contradistinction  unto  all  others,  or 
confines  it  unto  a  partv,  unto  whom  these  things  are  not  ap- 
propriate, he  cuts  himself  off  from  the  communion  of  the 
church  of  Christ."™  Even  the  Quakers  admit  "  that  out  of 
the  church  there  is  no  salvation,"  though  they  hold  that  "  there 
may  be  members  of  this  catholic  church  among  Heathens, 
Turks,  Jews  I""^  "  Beyond  all  question,"  say  the  Dissenters, 
"the  church,  and  the  church  only,  will  be  finally  saved;  the 
church,  and  the  church  alone,  is  the  pillar  and  ground  of  truth  ; 


I  "  This  confession  was  approved  by  the  Scottish  Presbyterians  in  their 
assembly,  1647  ;  and  being  ratified  by  their  Parliament  in  1690,  it  is  still 
received  by  them  and  their  collateral  societies. 

m  Owen's  True  Nature  of  a  Gospel  Church,  chap.  xi. 

■  Barclay,  prop.  x.  p.  273.  ■      . 


SECT.  III.]  SALVATION    IN    THE    CHURCH    ONLY.  41 

the  church,  and  nothing  but  the  church,  secures  a  Hving  and 
faithful  ministry."" 

The  British  churches  hold  salvation  as  inseparably  connected 
with  the  church  only.  Thus  in  the  office  of  baptism  we  pray, 
that  the  person  to  be  baptized  may  be  "  washed  and  sanctified 
with  the  Holy  Ghost,  that  he,  being  delivered  from  thy  wrath, 
may  be  received  into  the  ark  of  Christ's  church,  and  being 
steadfast  in  faith,  &c.,  may  so  pass  the  waves  of  this  trouble- 
some world,  that  finally  he  may  come  to  the  land  of  everlasting 
life :"  here  the  church  of  Christ  is  represented  as  the  ark  in 
which  alone  we  obtain  salvation.  We  afterwards  pray,  that 
"  with  the  residue  of  thy  holy  church  he  may  be  an  inheritor 
of  thine  everlasting  kingdom ;"  evidently  implying  that  the 
church  only  shall  inherit  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  And  in  the 
collect  for  Good  Friday  we  pray  "  for  all  Jews,  Turks,  infidels, 
and  heretics,  that  they  may  be  fetched  home  to  God's ^ocA;,  that 
they  may  he  saved  among  the  remnant  of  the  true  Israelites  ;" 
evidently  implying  that  salvation  is  not  found  out  of  the  church 
of  Christ.  Indeed  the  contrary  doctrine  of  those  who  say 
"  that  every  man  shall  be  saved  by  the  law  or  sect  which  he 
professeth,"  is  declared  Anathema  by  the  xviiith  article  of  the 
Synod  of  London,  a.d.  1562. 

The  catechism  of  Dean  Nowell,  which  Was  approved  by 
several  bishops  and  theologians  in  the  time  of  Queen  Elizabeth, 
speaks  as  follows  :  "  Is  there  no  hope  of  salvation  out  of  the 
church  ?  Without  it  there  can  be  nothing  but  damnation,  de- 
struction and  perdition.  For  what  hope  of  life  can  remain, 
when  the  members  are  torn  or  severed  from  the  head  or  body  ? 
Those  therefore  who  seditiously  excite  discord  in  the  church  of 
God,  and  cause  strife  and  dissent  therein,  and  disturb  it  with 
factions,  such  men  are  cut  off  from  all  hope  of  salvation 
through  the  remission  of  sins,  until  they  agree  and  are  re-united 
with  the  church."p 

o  Library  of  Ecclesiastical  Knowledge :  Essays  on  Ch.  Polity,  vol.  ii. 
p.  367. 

P  Noelli  Catechismus,  p.  108.  ed.  Oxon.  1835. 
VOL.  I. —  6 


42  SALVATION    IN    THE    CHURCH    ONLY.        [p.   I.  CH.    I. 

I  shall  only  cite  the  words  of  Bishops  Pearson,  Beveridge, 
and  Wilson,  in  further  confirmation  of  this  doctrine.  The 
first  writes  thus  :  "  The  necessity  of  believing  the  Holy 
Catholic  Church  appeareth  first  in  this,  that  Christ  hath  ap- 
pointed it  as  the  only  way  unto  eternal  life.  We  read  at  the 
first  that  '  the  Lord  added  daily  to  the  church  such  as  should 
be  saved '  (Acts  ii.  47)  ;  and  what  was  then  daily  done,  hath 
been  done  since  continually.  Christ  never  appointed  two  ways 
lo  heaven  ;  nor  did  he  build  a  church  to  save  some,  and  make 
another  institution  for  other  men's  salvation.  '  There  is  no 
other  name  under  heaven  given  unto  men  whereby  we  must  be 
saved,  but  the  name  of  Jesus  ;'  and  that  name  is  no  otherwise 
given  under  heaven  than  in  the  church.  As  none  were  saved 
from  the  deluge,  but  such  as  were  within  the  ark  of  Noah, 
formed  for  their  reception  by  the  command  of  God  :  as  none 
of  the  first-born  of  Egypt  lived,  but  such  as  were  within  those 
habitations  whose  door-posts  were  sprinkled  with  blood,  by  the 
appointment  of  God,  for  their  preservation  ;  as  none  of  the 
inhabitants  of  Jericho  could  escape  the  fire  and  sword,  but 
such  as  were  within  the  house  of  Rahab,  for  whose  protection 
a  covenant  was  made  ;  so  none  shall  ever  escape  the  eternal 
wrath  of  God,  which  belong  not  to  the  church  of  God.""! 

Bishop  Beveridge  on  those  words,  "  the  Lord  added  daily  to 
the  church  such  as  should  be  saved,"  says,  "  This  being  the 
way  and  method  that  he  hath  settled  in  the  vi^orld  for  the  saving 
of  souls,  or  for  the  applying  that  salvation  to  them  which  he 
hath  purchased  for  them,  we  have  no  ground  to  expect  that  he 
should  ever  recede  from  it."  And  afterwards  :  "  Seeing  there- 
fore  that  the  Holy  Ghost  hath  so  positively  affirmed  that  the 
Lord  added  to  the  church  such  as  should  be  saved,  and  like- 
wise hath  given  us  such  extraordinary  instances  of  it,  it  is  no 
wonder  that  the  Fathers  so  frequently  assert,  that  there  is  no 
salvation  to  be  had  out  of  Christ's  Holy  Catholic  Church  ;  but 
that  whosoever  would  be  a  member  of  the  church  triumphant 

1  Pearson  on  the  Creed,  art.  ix.  vol.  ii.  p.  254. 


SECT.  III.]  OBJECTIONS.  43 

in  heaven,  he  must  first  be  a  member  of  the  church  here  mili- 
tant on  earth. "'^  Bishop  Wilson  says  :  "  If  God  addelh  to  this 
church  such  as  shall  be  saved,  then  if  I  for  ray  wicked  life 
shall  deserve  to  he  separated,  cut  off,  or  excommunicated  out 
of  any  particular  church,  which  is  a  true  member  of  this  Holy 
Catholic  Church,  then  am  I  most  assuredly  deprived  of  the 
ordinary  means  of  grace,  and  out  of  the  way  of  salvation."* 

OBJECTIONS. 

I.  The  doctrine  of  salvation  in  the  church  only  is  a  popish 
and  intolerant  doctrine. 

Answer.  (1.)  The  Romanists  are  orthodox  in  maintaining 
this  doctrine  in  the  abstract,  but  they  err  in  identifying 
the  church  exclusively  with  their  own  societies.  (2.)  Intole- 
rance might  with  equal  justice  be  objected  to  the  doctrine  of 
salvation  through  Christ  only  :  it  is  therefore  a  frivolous  ob- 
jection. 

II.  The  church  under  the  law  was  limited  within  the  pro- 
vince of  Judea,  yet  salvation  was  obtained  by  some  who  were 
not  Jews,  as  for  instance  by  Job,  and  by  others  of  the  Gentiles. 

Answer.  (1.)  The  church  of  the  Jews  was  only  instituted 
for  a  particular  people,  and  not  for  the  world  generally,  as  the 
Christian  church  was  ;  therefore  there  was  no  obligation  on 
other  nations  to  adopt  the  Jewish  polity.  (2.)  Job  and  other 
risihteous  men  of  the  Gentiles,  who  were  not  called  to  unite 
themselves  with  the  Jewish  church,  we  know  from  Scripture 
itself  to  have  been  acceptable  to  God  through  faith.  But  the 
Scripture  does  not  enable  us  to  judge  in  general  of  the  state  of 
those  who  have  died  in  ignorance  of  Christ,  even  after  the 
Gospel  was  preached  throughout  the  world  ;  all,  however,  who 
believed  not  when  they  heard  it,  were  condemned. 


'  Beveridge,  Sermon  IV".  on  Acts  ii.  47. 
•  Bishop  Wilson,  Sermon  on  Acts  ii.  32, 33. 


,   .         CHAPTER  11. 

ON  THE  NOTES  OF  THE  CHURCH  IN  GENERAL. 

If  it  be  true,  as  I  have  endeavoured  to  prove  in  the  last 
chapter,  that  Christ's  church  was  always  to  continue,  even  to 
the  end  of  the  world,  and  that  it  is  the  only  way  of  salvation,  it 
is  evident  that  nothing  deserves  our  attentive  examination  more 
than  the  signs  by  which  we  can  distinguish  the  church  of 
Christ  at  present  existing.  Surrounded  by  a  vast  multitude  of 
contending  societies  calling  themselves  Christian,  and  all  alike 
claiming  to  be  churches  of  Christ,  there  is  an  apparent  neces-  ' 
sity  for  the  discovery  of  some  method,  by  which,  without  any 
extreme  difficulty  or  labour,  we  may  discriminate  the  church  of 
God  from  its  rivals. 

It  cannot  be  requisite  to  prove  that  all  societies  calling  them- 
selves Christian,  are  not  necessarily  what  they  pretend  to  be  ; 
nor  is  it  probable  that  the  multiplied  "  denominations"  around 
us,  should  be  all  alike  faithful  and  obedient  to  our  Divine  Mas- 
ter. The  unanimous  opinion  indeed,  of  professing  Christians, 
is,  that  some  of  these  societies  belong  not  to  Christ  but  to  Anti- 
christ. Every  particular  doctrine  and  duty  of  Christianity  is 
made  a  matter  of  dispute,  and  denied  or  corrupted  by  some 
community  ;  and  it  seems  irrational  to  suppose  that  God  could 
have  instituted  "  a  kingdom  divided  against  itself"  on  every 
point,  torn  by  irreconcilable  divisions  and  mortal  enmities,  and 
exhibiting  a  chaotic  confusion  even  in  the  most  elementary 
principles  of  religion.  It  is  incredible,  if  Revelation  be  indeed 
from  God,  if  it  be  designed  for  perpetuity,  if  all  men  be  bound 
to  receive  it,  and  if  means  be  provided  by  Divine  Providence 
for  enabling  them  to  receive  it ;  it  is  incredible,  I  say,  when 
all  its  doctrines  and  precepts  are  made  matters  of  dispute,  and 
denied  by  some,  that  all  professing  Christians  should  be  equally 
included  in  the  church  of  Christ,     Besides  this,  Christ  himself 


CHAP.  II.]   IMPORTANCE  OF  NOTES  OF  THE  CHURCH.       45 

and  the  Apostles  predicted,  that,  after  their  departure,  there 
should  arise  false  Christs  and  false  prophets,  Antichrists,  and 
false  teachers,  who  should  privily  bring  in  damnable  heresies  ; 
and  that  many  should  be  deceived  by  their  arts.  These  evils 
were  to  continue  even  in  the  latter  days  of  the  world  ;  and 
therefore  there  is  a  very  great  probability,  that  some  of  the 
communities  calling  themselves  Christian,  may  have  arisen  in 
this  manner,  and  are  not  to  be  reckoned  as  any  part  of  the 
church  of  Christ. 

By  what  means  then  can  we  determine  with  certainty,  which, 
among  these  communities,  are  indeed  portions  of  the  church 
of  God  ?  All  declare  that  they  are  themselves  within  its  pale : 
all  assert  that  their  doctrines  and  practice  are  in  accordance 
with  Scripture,  and  with  the  commandment  of  Christ.  A 
hundred  different  societies  present  their  respective  claims  to 
our  adherence,  on  the  ground  of  their  peculiar  purity  and 
sanctity.  The  mind  is  perplexed  at  their  number,  and  the 
positiveness  of  their  assertions.  The  labour  of  investigating 
all,  or  many  of  these  cases  in  detail,  is  beyond  human  power 
and  endurance  ;  and  the  learning  and  judgment  requisite  to 
determine  such  a  multitude  of  difficult  questions  in  doctrine  and 
morality,  are  possessed  by  very  few  men  ;  while  if  the  research 
be  commenced  fortuitously,  without  any  clue  to  guide  us  to 
those  societies  which  may  most  probably  be  of  the  church  of 
Christ,  we  may  begin  by  devoting  a  great  deal  of  time  to  the 
examination  of  objects  totally  unworthy  of  our  attention. 

The  precepts  of  Christian  prudence  require,  that  we  should 
take  the  briefest  course,  consistent  with  a  security  of  arriving 
at  a  sound  conclusion  in  a  practical  question  of  such  vital 
importance.  "  The  time  is  short"  to  run  the  race  of  Chris- 
tianity, even  when  we  have  entered  on  it :  how  necessary  then 
is  it  that  we  should  endeavour  to  find  speedily,  as  well  as 
certainly,  the  arena  in  which  it  is  to  be  run.  It  is  with  such 
views,  that  theologians  in  various  ages  have  endeavoured  to 
lay  down  rules  for  the  discrimination  of  Christ's  church,  by  a 
comparatively  short  and  intelligible  process  ;  and  these  rules 
are   styled  notes  or  signs  of  the   church.     By  notes  of  the 


46  VARIOUS    NOTES    ASSIGNED    BY    THEOLOGIANS.      [PART  I. 

church  are  meant  some  of  its  more  prominent  attributes,  which 
may  be  ascertained  and  appUed  to  all  existing  communities  of 
professing  Christians,  without  any  very  lengthened  discussion 
on  obscure  and  difficult  points. 

In  this  point  of  view,  general  truth  of  doctrine  and  general 
accordance  with  the  law  and  institutions  of  Christ  do  not  seem 
notes  such  as  are  here  spoken  of.  Each  society  pretends  its 
own  soundness  in  these  respects,  and  sustains  its  own  views 
by  scriptural  and  other  arguments  ;  and  the  critical  investi- 
gation of  all  the  doctrines  and  duties  of  Christianity  in  contro- 
versy, is  impossible  to  the  iniinite  majority  of  men.  It  would 
demand,  at  all  events,  too  lengthened  a  process  ;  and  even  if 
a  society  were  proved  to  be  in  error  on  some  point,  it  would 
not  follow  directly  that  it  is  Anti-christian,  because  it  is 
generally  admitted,  that  there  may  be  doctrinal  blemishes,  in 
particular  churches,  which  do  not  absolutely  annul  their  char- 
acter. It  is  not  doubtful,  indeed,  that  the  church  of  Christ 
is  on  the  whole,  faithful  and  obedient  to  the  Revelation  of 
Christ ;  but  the  great  majority  of  men  are  always  obliged, 
absolutely,  either  to  follow  the  doctrine  of  their  church,  or  to 
be  uncertain  on  many  points  ;  and  it  is  impossible  that  they 
should  discover  the  true  church,  by  investigating  all  those  doc- 
trines which,  through  their  ignorance,  they  are  obliged  by  the 
arrangements  of  Divine  Providence  to  receive  on  her  testimony. 

The  necessity  of  devising  some  general  notes  of  the  church, 
and  of  not  entering  at  once  on  controversial  debates  concerning 
all  points  of  doctrine  and  discipline,  was  early  perceived  by 
Christian  theologians.  TertuUian  appeals  in  refutation  of  the 
heresies  of  his  age,  to  the  antiquity  of  the  church  derived  from 
the  Apostles,  and  its  priority  to  all  heretical  communities.'' 
Irenasus  refers  to  the  unity  of  the  church's  doctrines,  and  the 
succession  of  her  bishops  from  the  Apostles.''  The  univer- 
sality of  the  church  was  more  especially  urged  in  the  contro- 

*  Prsescriptiones  adv.  Hsereticos. 
''  Adv.  Haereses,  lib.  i.  c.  10 ;  lib.  iil 


CH.    II.]       VARIOUS    NOTES    ASSIGNED    BY    THEOLOGIANS.  47 

versy  with  the  Donatists.  St.  Augustine  reckons  amongst 
those  things  which  attached  him  to  the  church  :  The  consent 
of  nations,  authority  founded  on  miracles,  sanctity  of  morals, 
antiquity  of  origin,  succession  of  bishops  from  St.  Peter  to  the 
present  Episcopate,  and  the  very  name  of  the  catholic  church." 
St.  Jerome  mentions  the  continual  duration  of  the  church  from 
the  Apostles,  and  the  very  appellation  of  the  Christian  name.*^ 
In  modern  times  Bellarmine  of  the  Roman  school,  added  several 
other  notes,  such  as  :  Agreement  with  the  primitive  church  in 
doctrine,  union  of  members  among  themselves  and  with  their 
Head,  sanctity  of  doctrine  and  of  founders,  efficacy  of  doctrine, 
continuance  of  miracles  and  prophecy,  confessions  of  adver- 
saries, the  unhappy  end  of  those  who  opposed  the  church,  and 
the  temporal  felicity  conferred  on  it.^  Luther  assigned  as  notes 
of  the  true  church,  the  true  and  uncorrupted  preaching  of  the 
Gospel,  administration  of  baptism,  of  the  eucharist,  and  of  the 
keys  ;  a  legitimate  ministry,  public  service  in  a  known  lan- 
guage, and  tribulations  internally  and  externally. '^  Calvin 
reckons  only  truth  of  doctrine,  and  right  administration  of  the 
sacraments  ;  and  seems  to  reject  succession. s  Our  learned 
theologians  adopt  a  different  view  in  some  respects.  Dr.  Field 
admits  the  following  notes  of  the  church  :  Truth  of  doctrine  ; 
use  of  sacraments  and  means  instituted  by  Christ ;  union  under 
lawful  ministers  ;  antiquity  without  change  of  doctrine  ;  lawful 
succession,  i.  e.  with  true  doctrine  ;  and  universality  in  the' 
successive  sense,  i.  e.  the  prevalence  of  the  church  successively 
in  all  nations.''  Bishop  Taylor  admits  as  notes  of  the  clmrch, 
antiquity,  duration,  succession  of  bishops,  union  of  member* 


c  Contra  Epistolara  Manichaei  Fundamenti,  c.  45.  Tom.  viii.  p.  153, 
ed.  Benedict.  •    • 

J  Dialogus  adversus  Luciferianos,  torn.  iv.  pars  ii.  p.  306,  ed.  Benedict. 

e  De  Ecclesia,  lib.  iv.  cap.  3,  &c. 

*■  Lutherus,  De  Ecclesia,  et  qua;  sint  notae,  &c.,  torn.,  vii,  p.  147,  oper. 
ed.  1550,  &c. 

6  Institutiones,  lib.  iv.  c.  1.  s.  7 — 9. 

''  Of  the  Church,  b.  ii.  c.  1,  2,  5,  &c. 


48  NOTES    OF    THE    CHURCH.  [PART    I- 

among    themselves    and   wilh    Christ,    sanctity   of    doctrine, 
&c.' 

It  is  plain  that  we  are  not  obliged  to  follow  implicitly  the 
judgment  of  particular  theologians  in  ancient  or  modern  times, 
in  selecting  notes  of  the  church.  Bellarmine's  notes,  of  tem- 
poral prosperity  and  the  unhappy  end  of  the  church's  enemies, 
are  rejected  by  Tournely,  Bailly,'*^  and  generally  by  modern 
Romish  theologians.  They  also  diffar  with  him  and  several 
other  writers  of  their  communion,  on  the  question  of  the 
universality  of  the  church,  which  they  rightly  maintain,  accord- 
ing to  the  doctrine  of  St.  Augustine,  in  the  simultaneous  and 
permanent  sense,  as  opposed  to  the  doctrine  of  successive 
universality,  which  Melchior  Canus,  Bellarmine,  and  others 
admitted.^  We  have  a  right  to  the  same  liberty  of  selection 
and  addition  as  regards  the  notes  assigned  by  our  theologians ; 
and  if  any  of  them  have  appeared  to  dwell  too  much  on  general 
truth  of  doctrine  as  a  note,  or  to  adopt  the  notion  of  successive 
universality,  we  are  in  no  degree  bound  to  sustain  a  line  of 
argument  which  we  do  not  judge  to  be  well  founded. 

The  Constantinopolitan  Creed  gives  to  the  Church  the  attri- 
butes of  "  One,  Holy,  Catholic,  and  Apostolical  ;"  and  as 
the  notes  of  the  church  may  in  fact  be  included  under  these 
four  heads,  and  as  Romish  theologians  generally  make  use  of 
them  for  the  purpose,  I  shall  for  the  sake  of  convenience  adopt 
this  arrangement  in  examining  the  notes  of  the  church  and 
marking  the  points  in  which  Romanists  and  others  are  to  be 
corrected.  But,  in  order  to  avoid  a  preliminary  difficulty  which 
might  arise  on  the  question  whether  the  church  of  Christ  is 
visible  or  invisible,  I  shall  first  examine  that  point. 

i  Dissuasive  from  Popery,  part  ii.  b.  1,  s.  1 ;  art.  vi.  p.  182,  &c.,  Oxford 
ed.  1836. 

k  "  Multi  nihilominus  inter  Catholicos  existimant  duas  posteriores  notas, 
quas  assignat  Bellarminus,  nempe  infelicem  exitum  hostium  ecclesiae,  et 
felicitatem  temporalem  eorum  qui  ecclesiam  defenderunt,  ab  eo  expungi 
debuisse." — Tournely,  De  Ecclesia,  qu.  i.  art.  2,  p.  60.  where  he  argues 
against  these  notes. — See  also  Bailly,  Tract,  de  Eccl.  c.  v. 

'  Melchior  Canus  de  Locis  Theolog.  lib.  iv.  cap.  postremum.  Resp.  ad 
13.    Bellarnain.,  1.  iv.  de  Notis  Eccl.,  c.  7. 


CHAPTER   III. 

ON    THE    VISIBILITY  OF   THE    CHURCH. 

By  the  visibility  of  the  church  is  meant  the  manifest,  pubhc, 
known  existence  of  congregations  or  churches  professing  Chris- 
tianity, and  joining  in  external  acts  of  Christian  worship.  The 
point  which  I  am  about  to  establish  is,  that  there  were  always  to 
exist  such  societies,  according  to  the  Divine  appointment ;  and 
that  Christianity  was  never  to  be  reduced  at  any  time  to  obscu- 
rity ;  or  to  be  a  secret  profession,  held  by  a  few  scattered  indi- 
viduals, living  and  uniting  externally  in  the  profession  of  a.  false 
rehgion.  The  question  of  an  invisible  church  will  be  considered 
among  the  objections. 

That  the  church  of  Christ  was  to  be  eminently  conspicuous 
and  visible,  we  collect  from  the  following  words  of  the  prophet 
Isaiah  :  "  It  shall  come  to  pass  in  the  last  days  that  the  mountain 
of  the  Lord's  House  shall  be  established  in  the  top  of  the  moun- 
tains, and  shall  be  exalted  above  the  hills  ;  and  all  nations  shall 
flow  unto  it"  (Isa.  ii.  2).  This  shows  that  the  church  of  Christ 
was  to  be  conspicuously  visible  or  known  to  all  the  world.  And 
the  prophet  Daniel's  expressions  are  equally  remarkable  :  "The 
stone  that  smote  the  image  became  a  great  mountain  and  filled 
the  whole  earth"  (Dan.  ii.  35).  This  is  afterwards  explained 
to  mean,  that  "  the  God  of  Heaven  shall  set  up  a  kingdom  which 
shall  never  he  destroyed^^  (v.  44):  that  is,  the  church,  which 
had  been  before  described  as  "  a  great  mountain,"  and  was 
therefore  to  be  in  the  highest  degree  visible. 

The  words  of  Christ  Himself  prove  the  visibility  of  the 
church,  when  he  says  :  "  Ye  are  the  light  of  the  world.  A  city 
that  is  set  on  a  hill  cannot  be  hid"  (Matt.  v.  14) :  and  it  equally 
follows  from  his  directions  in  the  case  of  an  offending  brother : 
"  tell  it  unto  the  church  :  but  if  he  neglect  to  hear  the  church, 

VOL.  I. — 7 


50  VISIBILITY    OF    THE   CHURCH.  [PART   I. 

let  him  be  unto  thee  as  a  heathen  man  and  a  pubhcan"  (Matt, 
xviii.  17) :  which  proves  that  the  church  must  be  always  visible  ; 
for  were  it  invisible,  this  precept  would  be  in  vain. 

The  directions  of  St.  Paul  to  the  Corinthians  relating  to 
judgments  in  the  church  (1  Cor.  vi.  4) ;  for  the  decorous  and 
proper  order  of  divine  worship  in  their  religious  assemblies 
(1  Cor.  xi) ;  and  his  rules  for  the  appointment  of  pastors  and 
teachers  (1  Tim.  iii.  Tit.  i),  all  establish  the  fact  that  Christians 
were  formed  into  visible  societies  by  the  Apostles.  The 
churches  to  whom  the  Epistles  were  addressed  were  all  visible 
societies,  known  to  the  heathen,  and  often  persecuted  by  them. 
If  indeed  this  had  not  been  the  case,  but  Christianity  had  been 
a  secret  invisible  profession,  the  prophecies  of  our  Saviour  that 
they  should  be  "  brought  before  kings  and  rulers  for  his  sake," 
that  they  should  be  reviled  and  persecuted  for  his  name's  sake, 
could  not  have  been  fulfilled.  In  conclusion,  it  may  be  asserted 
without  liesitation,  that  there  is  not  a  single  instance  in  the  New 
Testament  of  a  believer  who  was  not  externally  united  with  the 
rest  in  the  profession  of  Christianity.  Hence  it  results  that  the 
visible  pubhc  profession  of  Christianity  in  common,  is  according 
to  the  Divine  institution,  essential  to  the  Christian  church. 

This  is  confirmed  by  the  doctrine  of  primitive  tradition,  which 
always  describes  the  church  as  a  visible  and  conspicuous  socie- 
ty. Irenaeus  says  :  "  The  preaching  of  the  church  is  true  and 
firm,  wherein  the  same  way  of  salvation  is  shown  throughout  all 
the  world.  For  to  her  has  been  entrusted  the  light  of  God,  and 
thus,  the  wisdom*  of  God,  by  which  he  saveth  all  men,  'uttereth 
her  voice  in  the  streets,  she  crieth  in  the  chief  place  of  con- 
course,' &c.  .  .  .  For  everywhere  the  church  proclaims  the  truth, 
and  she  is  the  candlestick  with  seven  branches,  bearing  the  light 
of  Christ.^  Origen  observes,  that  "  we  ought  not  to  give  heed 
to  those  who  say,  '  Here  is  Christ,'  but  do  not  so  manifest  him 
in  the  church  which  from  the  East  even  to  the  West  is  full  of 
glory,  which  is  full  of  the  true  light,  which  is  the  pillar  and 


'  Irenaeus  adv.  Haeres.,  lib.  v.  c.  xx. 


CHAP,    in.]  VISIBILITY    OF  THE    CHURCH.  51 

ground  of  the  truth,  in  which  is  the  whole  advent  of  the  Son  of 
Man,  who  saith  to  all  that  are  in  every  place  :  '  Lo,  I  am  with 
you  always,  even  to  the  end  of  the  world.'"'  Cyprian  says  ; 
"  The  church  of  the  Lord,  full  of  light,  diffuses  her  rays 
throughout  the  whole  world.  Yet  th.e  light  which  is  every 
where  diffused,  is  one,  nor  is  the  unity  of  the  body  separated,"*' 
Chrysostom  declares,  that  ^'  it  is  easier  for  the  sun  to  be  extin- 
guished than  for  the  church  to  disappear."*^  Augustine  says, 
"  There  is  no  security  for  the  preservation  of  unity  except  from 
the  promises  of  Christ  to  his  church,  which  being  placed  on  a 
mountain,  as  it  was  said,  cannot  be  hidden  ;  and  therefore  it  is 
necessary  that  this  church  should  be  known  to  all  parts  of  the 
world."'^  And  in  another  place  :  "  Hence  it  is  that  the  true 
church  cannot  be  hidden  to  any  one,  and  hence  that  which  he 
saith  in  the  Gospel :    '  A  city  set  on  a  hill  cannot  be  hid.'  "*" 

It  is  certain,  in  fact,  that  all  the  Fathers  considered  the  church 
as  visible  throughout  the  world  in  all  its  particular  churches  or 
congregations.  If  indeed  the  church  of  Christ  had  not  been 
visible  by  Divine  institution,  it  could  not  have  been  the  light  of 

''  "  Non  debemus  attendere  eis  qui  dicunt :  '  Ecce  hie  Christus,'  non  au- 
tem  ostendunt  eum  in  ecclesia  quae  plena  est  fulgore  ab  orients  usque  ad 
occidentem,  quae  plena  est  lumine  vero,  qua  est  columna  et  firmamentum 
veritatis,  in  qua  tota  totus  est  adventus  Filii  hominis  dicentis  omnibus  qui 
ubique  sunt :  '  Ecce  ego  vobiscum  sum  omnibus  diebus  vitae,  usque  ad  con- 
summationem  sajculi.' " — Origen  in  Matt,  tract,  xxx.  torn.  ii.  p,  865.  ed. 
Benedict. 

c  "  Sic  et  ecclesia  Domini  luce  perfusa  per  orbem  totum  radios  suos 
porrigit ;  unum  tamen  lumen  est,  quod  ubique  difFunditur,  nee  unitas  corporis 
separatur.     Cypri.  de  Unitate,  p.  254.  ed.  Pamel. 

il  EuKJXiTSgoii  rof  »\<ov  <r/363-9«i/£t/,  «  T/iv  ix-x-Knirinv  difsLvlfS^VdU. — In  illud,  vidi 
Dominum,  Horn.  iv.  tom.  vi.  p.  122.  oper.  ed.  Bened. 

e  "  Nulla  est  igitur  securitas  unitatis,  nisi  ex  promissis  Dei  ecclesiae  de- 
clarata,  quae  super  montem,  ut  dictum  est,  constituta,  abscondi  non  potest : 
et  ideo  necesse  est  ut  omnibus  terrarum  partibus  nota  sit." — Aug.  contr. 
Epist.  Parmeniani,  lib.  iii.  c.  5.  tom.  ix.  p.  75.  ed.  Benedict. 

^  "  Hinc  fit  ut  ecclesia  vera  neminem  lateat.  Unde  est  illud  quod  in 
Evangelic  ipse  dicit :  Non  potest  civitas  abscondi  super  montem  constitu- 
ta."— Cont.  Petil ,  lib.  ii.  c.  xxxii.  torn.  ix.  p.  240. 


i52  VISIBILITY    OF    THE    CHURCH.  [PART    I. 

the  world  or  a  witness  of  Christianity,  and  if  it  had  ever  ceased 
to  be  visible,  the  gates  of  hell  might  well  have  been  said  to  have 
prevailed  against  it.  If  the  church  of  Christ,  once  exalted  on 
the  top  of  the  mountains,  and  spreading  herself  from  Judea  to 
the  ends  of  the  earth,  could  have  so  far  fallen  away  as  to  become 
the  kingdom  of  Antichrist,  wherein  some  few  souls  alone  re- 
tained their  Christianity  in  obscurity,  while  they  externally 
united  in  the  abominations  of  an  Antichristian  society ;  in  such 
a  case,  it  seems  impossible  to  deny  that  the  gates  of  hell  must 
have  prevailed  against  her.  Were  there  no  promise  that  the 
church  should  be  always  visible,  what  assurance  could  we  have 
that  any  existing  community  of  Christians  is  a  church  of  Christ? 
It  might  be  that  the  true  church  still  lurks  unperceived  in  some 
corner,  or  that  as  yet  its  members  are  concealed  amongst  various 
communities  of  professing  Christians.  It  might  be  that  all  ex- 
isting visible  churches  are  Antichristian. 

But  I  proceed  to  show  the  general  agreement  of  Christians  in 
modern  times  that  the  church  is  visible.  It  would  be  superflu- 
ous to  prove  that  those  of  the  Roman  obedience  and  the  Eastern 
churches  maintain  the  visibility  of  the  church :  none  of  them 
have  ever  denied  it.  But  the  perpetual  visibility  of  the  church 
has  been  also  acknowledged  by  the  Lutherans,  the  Reformed, 
and  by  various  sects. 

The  confession  of  Augsburg  professes,  "that  there  is  one  holy 
church  which  is  to  endure  for  ever,"  that  it  is  "  a  congregation 
of  saints  in  which  the  gospel  is  rightly  taught  and  the  sacra- 
ments administered,"^  The  preaching  of  the  gospel  and  admin- 
istration of  the  sacraments  are  attributes  of  a  visible  church 
only.  The  Apology  also,  drawn  up  by  Melancthon,  declares, 
that  the  impious  only  communicate  externally  with  the  true 
Church,  the  notes  of  which  are  :  "  the  pure  doctrine  of  the  gos- 
pel, and  the  sacraments  :  and  this  church  is  properly  the  pillar 


s  "  Item  docent,  quod  una  sancta  Ecclesia  perpetuo  mansura  sit.  Est 
antem  Ecclesia  congregatio  sanctorum,  in  qua  evangelium  recte  docetur  et 
recte  administrantur  sacramenta. — Art.  vii.  de  Ecclesia. 


CHAP.    III.]  VISIBILITY    OF   THE    CHURCH.  '  53 

of  the  truth."^  This  proves  that  they  esteem  the  church  a 
visible  society ;  and  the  confession  of  Augsburg  denies  that 
"all  ceremonies,  all  old  institutions  were  abolished  in  their 
churches,"'  evidently  understanding  visible  societies.  The 
Saxon  confession  says,  that  "  the  church  may  be  seen  and  heard 
according  to  that  text :  '  their  sound  vv^ent  into  all  the  world  ;'  " 
and  that  there  is  a  visible  church  in  which  God  operates.'' — 
The  Bohemian  confession  approved  by  Luther  ;i  the  confession 
of  the  Reformed  of  Strasburg ;™  the  Helvetic  confession  i^ 
that  of  Basil  in  1536  ;"  the  Galilean  ;p  all  speak  repeatedly  of 
the  church  as  essentially  visible.  This  was  also  the  doctrine 
of  Calvin,  who  declares  that  out  of  the  visible  church  there  is 
no  salvation. 'I 

h  "  Docet  impios  illos  quamvis  habeant  societatem  externorum  signorum, 
tamen  non  esse  verura  regnum  Christi  ....  neque  vero  somniamus  nos 
Platonicam  civitatem,  ut  quidam  impie  cavillantur,  sed  dicimus  exislere  hanc 
Ecclesiam  .  .  .  Et  addimus  notas :  puram  doctrinam  evangelii  et  sacra- 
raenta." — Apol.  Conf.  iv.  de  Ecclesia. 

'  "  Falsa  enim  calumnia  est,  quod  omnes  ceremoniee,  omnia  Vetera  insti- 
tutain  Ecclesiis  nostris  aboleantur." — Conf.  August.,  pars  i.  xxii. 

k  "  Non  igitur  de  Ecclesia,  tanquam  de  idea  Platonica  loquimur ;  sed 
Ecclesiam  monstramus,  quaj  conspici  et  exaudiri  potest ;  juxta  illud  :  In 
omnem  terram  exivit  sonus  eorum  .  .  .  Dicimus  igitur,  Ecclesiam  visibilem 
in  hac  vita  coetum  esse  amplectentium  evangelium  Christi,  et  recte  utentium 
sacramentis,  in  quo  Deus  per  ministerium  evangelii  est  efficax,  et  multos  ad 
vitam  seternam  regenerat." — Conf.  Saxon.,  art.  xii. 

^  Confess.  Bohemica,  cap.  viii. 

1°  Confessio  Tetrapolit.,  cap.  xvi.  16. 

"  Conf.  Helvetica,  c.  xvii.  "  Militans  in  terris  Ecclesia  semper  plurimas 
habet  particulares  Ecclesias,  quee  tamen  omnes  ad  unitatem  Catholicae  Ec- 
clesiae  referuntur."  It  is  evident  that  the  Church  is  all  through  regarded 
as  a  visible  society. 

°  Art.  xiv.  XV. 

p  Conf.  Gallicana,  cap.  xxvii. 

q  "  In  symbolo,  ubi  profitemur  nos  credere  Ecclesiam,  id  non  solum  ad 
visibilem,  de  qua  nunc  agimus,  refertur,  sed  ad  omnes  quoque  electos  Dei." 
— Inst.,  iv.  1.  s.  2.  "Quia  nunc  de  visibili  Ecclesia  disserere  propositum 
est,  discamus  vel  uno  matris  elogio  quam  utilis  sit  nobis  ejus  cognitio,  imo 
necessaria :  quando  non  alius  est  in  vitam  ingressus,  &c extra  ejus 


<■ 


54  VISIBILITY    OF    THE   CHURCH.  [PART  I. 

In  fact,  the   Reformed   seem  generdly  to  have  taught  the 
doctrine   of  the  visibihty  of  the  church,  until  some   of  them 
deemed  it  necessary,  in  consequence  of  their  controversy  with 
the  Romanists,  who  asked  them  where  their  church  existed 
before  Luther,  to  maintain  that  the  church  might  sometimes  be 
invisible.      This   mistaken   view    appears  in  the  Belgic  con- 
fession,  and  was  adopted  by  some  of  the  Protestants  ;    but 
it  arose  entirely  from  their  error  in  forsaking  the  defensive 
ground  which  their  predecessors  had  taken  at  first ;  and  placing 
themselves  in  the  false  position  of  claiming  the  exclusive  title 
of  the  Church  of  Christ,  according  to  the  ordinary  signification 
of  the  term.     Jurieu,  a  minister  of  the  French  Protestants,  has 
shown  this,'^  and  has  endeavoured  to  prove  that  the  Church  of 
Christ  is  essentially  visible,  and  that  it  never  remained  obscured 
without  ministry  or  sacraments,  even  in  the  persecutions,  or  in 
the  time  of  Arianism.     The  same  truth  has  been  acknowledged 
by  several  denominations  of  dissenters  in  Britain.     Thus  the 
Presbyterian  divines  of  Westminster  (1647)  declared,  that  the 
visible   church,  which  is  also  Catholic  or  universal  under  the 
Gospel,  ...  is  the   kingdom  of  the   Lord   Jesus  Christ,  the 
house  and  family  of  God,  out  of  which  there  is   no  ordinary 
possibility  of  salvation."'*      Dr.  Owen,   the  chief  of  the  Inde- 
pendents in  the  seventeenth  century,  admits  the  existence  of 
*'  a  visible  catholic  church  ;"'^  and  says,  that  the  "  union  of  the 
catholic  church  in   all  particular  churches  (which  are  visible 
according  to  him,)  is  always  the  same,  inviolable,  unchangea- 
ble, comprehending  all  the  churches  in  the  world  at  all  times, 

gremium  nulla  est  speranda  peccatorum  remissio,  nee  ulla  salus,"  &c. — 
Ibid.  s.  4.  If  salvation  is  only  to  be  obtained  in  the  visible  Church,  it  fol- 
lows that  there  must  always  be  a  visible  Church.  He  adds,  that :  "  paternus 
Dei  favor  et  peculiare  spiritualis  vitae  testimonium  ad  gregem  ejus  restrin- 
gitur:  ut  semper  exUialis  sit  ab  Ecclcsia  discessioy — Ibid. 

r  In  his  Systeme  de  I'Eglisc. 

8  Westminster  Confession,  chap.  xxv. 

t  Owen's  True  Nature  of  a  Gospel  Church,  p.  50. 


CHAP,  III,]  VISIBILITY    OF    THE    CHURCH.  55 

.  .  .  nor  to  be  prevailed  against  by  the  gates  of  hell,""  In 
fact,  all  the  dissenting  societies  claim  to  be  "  Churches  of 
Christ,"  therefore  they  must  admit  that  the  church  of  Christ 
was  to  be  visible,  w^hich  unless  they  believed  that  Christ  had 
promised  this  visibility,  they  could  not  be  certain  of.  Even  the 
Quakers  admit  the  visibility  of  the  church.  Barclay  speaks  of 
the  "  Christians,  as  they  are  stated,  in  a  joint  fellowship  and 
communion,  and  come  under  a  visible  and  outward  society ; 
which  society  is  called  the  Church  of  God,  and  in  Scripture 
compared  to  a  body,  and  therefore  named  the  body  of 
Christ."^ 

Finally,  I  proceed  to  show  that  the  visibility  of  the  church 
is  recognized  by  the  British  churches  and  our  theologians. 
The  articles  of  the  Synod  of  London  (1562)  uniformly  regard 
the  church  as  a  visible  society ;  as  in  the  following  passages  : 
"  The  visible  Church  of  Christ  is  a  congregation  of  faithful 
men,  in  the  which  the  word  of  God  is  preached,  and  the  Sacra 

ments   be  duly  administered,"  &c "As  the  Church  of 

Jerusalem,  Alexandria,  and  Antioch  have  erred  ;  so  also  the 
church  of  Rome  hath  erred."'''  ..."  The  Church  hath  power 
to  decree  rights  and  ceremonies,  and  authority  in  contro- 
versies of  faith."''  .  ..."  It  is  repugnant  to  the  word  of 
God,  and  the  custom  of  the  Primitive  Church,  to  have  public 

u  Owen's  True  Nature  of  a  Gospel  Church,  p.  403. — The  modern  dissen- 
ters in  their  "  Ecclesiastical  Library"  (on  religious  Creeds,  p.  126.)  say  ; 
*'  The  Redeemer  promised  to  be  with  His  Church  always,  even  to  the  end 
of  the  uwrld  ....  as  defending  and  perpetuating  the  prosperity  of  His 
ivhole  body,  and  maintaining  its  purity  and  vitality  to  the  consummation  of 
all  earthly  things.  And  if  so,  His  Church  will,  to  the  end,  continue  to 
prefer  truth  to  falsehood,  and  will  preserve  that  purity  in  its  ministry  by 
virtue  of  its  own  ever-living  purity,  which  will  in  vain  be  attempted  by 
instruments,  artificial,  and  extraneous  to  itself."  No  words  can  more 
strongly  express  the  perpetuity  of  the  Church,  and  the  total  impossibility 
that  it  could  ever  have  apostatized.  Yet  dissent  only  exists  on  the  suppo- 
sition that  the  Universal  Church  has  apostatized. 

V  Barclay's  Apology  for  the  Quakers,  prop.  xi.  p.  272. 

'"  Art.  xix.  *  Art.  xx. 


56 


VISIBILITY    OF    THE    CHURCH.  [PART    I. 


prayer  in  the  Church,  or  to  minister  the  Sacraments  in  a  tongue 
not  understood  of  the  people. "^  .  .  .  .  "  Although  in  the  visi- 
ble Church  ....  sometimes  the  evil  have  chief  authority  in 
the  administration  of  the  Word  and  Sacraments  ;  yet  forasmuch 
as  they  ...  do  minister  by  his  commission  and  authority  we 
may   use   their   ministry."^   ....  "That  person  which    by 
open  denunciation  of  the  Church  is  rightly  cut  off  from  the 
unity  of  the  Church,  and  excommunicated,  ought  to  be  taken 
of  the  whole  muUitude   of  the  faithful  as  a  heathen  and    a 
publican,    until    he    be  openly   reconciled    by   penance,    and 
received  into  the  Church.'"^      "  Whosoever  through  his  private 
judgment,  willingly   and  purposely  doth  openly  break  the  tra- 
ditions and  ceremonies  of  the   Church."  ....  "Every parti- 
cular or  national  church  hath  authority  to  ordain,  change,  and 
abolish  ceremonies   or  rites,"^  &c.     In  all  these  passages  the 
church  is  uniformly  regarded  as  a  visible  society,  in  which  the 
Gospel  is  preached,  the  Sacraments  administered,  a  ministry 
presides,  rites  and  ceremonies  are  decreed,   controversies    of 
faith    determined,  and    offenders    censured  by   authority.     A 
visible   association  ;  visible  sacraments  ;  a  visible  priesthood, 
are  all  supposed  to  be  instituted  by  Christ,  and  therefore  essen- 
tial to  the  church ;  and  there   is  no  trace  of  the  notion  that 
Christianity  should  ever  he  concealed,  a  few  scattered  behev- 
ers,    surrounded    and    overpowered    by    a    triumphant    and 
universal  apostacy. 

The  catechism  of  Dr.  Nowell,  approved  by  several  bishops, 
confesses,  that  the  church  of  God  is  visible,  and  that  those  who 
disturb  this  church,  or  dissent  from  it,  are  without  hope  of 
salvation.^  Bishop  Jewell  says,  that  "  we  believe  there  is  one 
church  of  God,"  and  "  that  there  are  various  orders  of  ministers 
in  it ;  that  some  are  deacons,  some  priests,  some  bishops,"'^  &c. 


y  Art.  xxiv.  .  a  Art.  xxxiii. 

I  Art.  xxvi.  b  Art.  xxxiv. 

»  NoeUi  Catechismus,  p.  106.  108.     Oxford  ed.  1836. 
^  JueUi  Apologia,  p.  27,  28.     Ed.  London.  1606. 


CHAP.    III.]  VISIBILITY    OF  THE    CHURCH.  57 

This  plainly  refers  only  to  a  visible  church.  Bishop  Pearson 
professes  as  "  a  necessary  and  infallible  truth,  that  Christ  by 
the  preaching  of  the  Apostles  did  gather  unto  Himself  a 
Church  consisting  of  thousands  of  believers  and  numerous 
congregations,  to  which  He  added  daily  such  as  should  be 
saved,  and  will  successively  and  daily  add  to  the  same  unto  the 
end  of  the  world.""  This  church  he  had  before  described  as 
possessing  unity  of  government  and  sacraments ;  therefore  it 
was  visible.  Dr.  Field  denies  that  the  writers  of  the  Reforma- 
tion generally  maintain  the  church  to  be  invisible.  Bellarmine, 
he  says,  labours  in  vain,  "  in  proving  that  there  is,  and  always 
hath  been  a  visible  church ;  and  that  not  consisting  of  some 
few  scattered  Christians  without  order  of  ministry  or  use  of 
sacraments  ;  for  all  this  toe  do  most  luillingly  yield  unto  ; 
howsoever,  perhaps,  some  few  have  been  of  opinion  that  though 
all  others  failing  from  the  faith,  the  truth  of  God  should  remain 
only  in  some  few  of  the  laity,  yet  the  promise  of  Christ  con- 
cerning the  perpetuity  of  His  church  might  still  be  verified."^ 

I  shall  conclude  with  the  words  of  ihe  profound  Bishop 
Butler.  "  Miraculous  powers  were  given  to  the  first  preach- 
ers of  Christianity,  in  order  to  their  introducing  it  into  the 
world  :  a  visible  Church  was  established  in  order  to  continue  it, 
and  carry  it  on  successively  throughout  all  ages.  Had  Moses 
and  the  Prophets,  Christ  and  his  Apostles,  only  taught,  and  by 
miracles  proved,  religion  to  their  contemporaries,  the  benefit  of 
their  instructions  would  have  reached  but  to  a  small  part  of 
mankind.  Christianity  must  have  been  in  a  great  degree 
sunk  and  forgot  in  a  very  few  ages.  To  prevent  this,  appears 
to  have  been  one  reason  why  a  visible  Church  was  instituted  ; 
to  be  like  a  city  upon  a  hill,  a  standing  memorial  to  the  world 
of  the  duty  which  we  owe  our  Maker  ;  to  call  men  continually, 
both  by  precept  and  instruction,  to  attend  to  it,  and  by  the  form 
of  religion  ever  before  their  eyes,  remind  them  of  the  reality  ; 

e  On  the  Creed,  art.  ix.  vol.  ii.  p.  256. 
'  Field,  Of  the  Church,  book  i.e.  10. 
VOL.   I. — 8 


58  VISIBILITY    OF    THE    CHURCH.  [PART    I. 

to  be  the  repository  of  the  oracles  of  God  ;  to  hold  up  the  light 
of  revelation  in  aid  of  that  of  nature,  and  propagate  it  through- 
out all  generations  to  the  end  of  the  world."^ 


OBJECTIONS. 

1 .  The  true  Church  of  Christ  consists  only  of  the  elect,  but 
the  elect  are  not  known  and  visible  to  the  world  ;  therefore  the 
Church  of  Christ  is  invisible. 

Answer.  I  deny  the  first  proposition,  if  it  be  understood  of 
election  to  eternal  life.     The  Church  or  kingdom  of  God  com- 
prises many  who  shall  not  inherit  eternal  life.     This  is  evident 
from  the  parable  of  the  tares  and  the  draw-net,  in  which  it 
appears  that  the  evil  will  only  be  separated  from  the  good  at  the 
day  of  judgment.    It  is  true  indeed  that  the  sanctified  and  elect 
are    principally    and    essentially    the    church  of   Christ  ;  but 
besides  them  are  many  sinners  and  hypocrites,  who  belong  to 
the  Church,  though  only  externally,  temporarily,  and  imperfect- 
ly.    The    second  proposition  requires  a  distinction.   'I    grant 
that  the  elect  are  not  visible  as  elect,  but  I  deny  that  they  are 
not  visible  as  professing  Cltristians.     There  is  not  a  single 
instance  of  any  saint  in  the  New  Testament  who  did  not  exter- 
nally and  visibly  confess  Christ  with  all  other  Christians  :  nor 
is  there  an  instance  of  a  church  whose  existence  was  unknown 
and  secret.     On  the  contrary,  a  visible  profession  of   Chris- 
tianity is  essential,  for,  "  With  the  mouth  confession  is  made 
unto  salvation''^  (Rom.  x.  10) ;  and  again  :  "  Whosoever  shall 
confess  me  before   men,  him  shall  the   Son   of  Man  confess 
before  the  angels  of  God."     As  St.  Augustine  saith  :     "  Faith 
requires  from  us  the  office  both  of  the  heart  and  the  tongue  ; 
;  .  .  .  yve  cannot  be  saved  unless  we  labour  for  the  salvation  of 
our  neighbours,  by  professing  with  our  mouth  the  faith  which 
we  bear  in  our  heart."''     Wliile  therefore  we  admit  that  those 

g  Butler's  Analogy,  part  ii.  c.  i. 

^  "  Quoniam  scriptum  est  ...  '  quia  Justus  ex  Me  vivit/  caque  fides 


CHAP,    in.]  OBJECTIONS.  59 

who  arc  essentially  members  of  the  church  are  not  discernible 
as  such  from  hypocritical  professors  or  false  brethren,  and  are 
therefore  in  one  sense  invisible  ;  we  maintain  that  they  always 
openly  profess  Christ,  and  are  therefore  always  and  essentially 
visible. 

II.  The  worship  of  thcvfaithful  is  entirely  spiritual,  therefore 
the  Church  is  not  visible.  The  former  proposition  is  proved  by 
Scripture.  "  After  those  days,  saith  the  Lord,  I  will  put  my 
law  in  their  inward  parts,  and  write  it  in  their  hearts  "  (Jer. 
xxxi.  33).  "  The  hour  cometh  and  now  is,  when  the  true  wor- 
shippers shall  worship  the  Father  in  spirit  and  in  truth  "  (John 
iv.  23).  "  Ye  also,  as  lively  stones,  are  built  up  a  spiritual 
house,  a  holy  priesthood,  to  offer  up  spiritual  sacrifices"  (1 
Pet.  ii.  5).  .  . 

Answer.  (1.)  This  proves  too  much,  namely,  that  no  exter- 
nal worship,  sacraments,  or  ordinances  were  instituted  by 
Christ ;  which  would  be  contrary  to  scripture  and  the  general 
consent  of  all  nations  and  ages.  (2.)  These  expressions  sig- 
nify that  the  Christian  religion  was  not  to  be  chiefly  typical, 
ceremonial,  and  external,  like  the  Jewish,  or  rather  like  what  it 
had  been  made  by  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees ;  but  chiefly  in- 
ternal, though  not  without  external  rites,  and  the  form  of  a 
visible  church. 

III.  "  The  kingdom  of  God  is  within  you"  (Luke  xvii.  21). 
Answer.  This  is  only  intended  to  correct  the  errors  of  the 

Jews,  who  thought  it  would  come  with  external  pomp  and 
power,  or  "with  observation"  (verse  20).  In  these  words 
Christ  meant  that  His  dominion  was  chiefly  in  the  mind  and 
heart ;  but  this  does  not  prove  that  it  was  not  also  to  be  mani- 
fested by  external  signs  of  obedience  and  profession. 

officium  a  nobis  exigit  et  cordis  et  linguse  ;  ait  enim  Apostolus,  '  Corde 
creditur  ad  jiistitiam,  ore  autem  confessio  fit  ad  salutem  :'  oportet  nos  esse 
et  justitiae  memores  et  salutis.  Quando  qiiidem  in  sempiterna  jnstitia 
regnaturi,  a  prajsenti  seculo  maligno  salvi  fieri  non  possiimus,  nisi  et  nos  ad 
salutem  proximorum  nitentes,  etiam  ore  profiteamur  fidem,  quam  corde 
gestamus." — August,  de  Fide  et  Symbdlo,  torn.  vi.  p.  151.  cd.  Bened. 


60  VISIBILITY    OP    THE   CHURCH.  [pART  I. 

IV.  "  When  the  Son  of  Man  cometh  shall  He  find  faitli  on 
the  earth"  (Luke  xviii.  8)?  it  seems,  from  this,  that  the  visi- 
ble church,  if  it  then  exist,  shall  not  be  the  church  of  Christ. 

Answer.  Christ  only  speaks  of  "  faith  which  worketh  hy  love" 
(Gal.  V.  6)  ;  of  which  there  will  be  little  in  the  church  of 
Christ  in  the  latter  days,  "Because^  iniquity  shall  abound,  the 
love  of  many  shall  wax  cold  "  (Matt.  xxiv.  12)  ;'  yet  still  there 
shall  be  some  faithful  in  the  visible  church  of  Christ :  for  "  Lo,  I 
am  with  3^ou  always,  even  to  the  end  of  the  world  ;"  and  again, 
'*  We  which  are  alive  and  remain,  shall  be  caught  up  ...  .  and 
so  shall  we  ever  be  with  the  Lord"  (1  Thess.  iv.  17). 

V.  "  That  day  shall  not  come,  except  there  come  a  falling 
away  first,  and  that  man  of  sin  be  revealed,  the  son  of  perdi- 
tion, who  opposcth  and  exalteth  himself  above  all  that  is  called 
God,  or  that  is  worshipped ;  so  that  he,  as  God,  sitteth  in  the  tem- 
ple of  God,  showing  himself  that  he  is  God"  (2  Thess.  ii.  3,  4). 

Answer.  (1.)  It  does  not  follow  that  because  there  is  an 
apostacy,  there  is  not  also  a  true  church.  (2.)  The  man  of 
sin  sits  in  God's  temjjle,  which  still  remains  God's  temple  ;  he 
usurps  the  attributes  of  God,  but  it  does  not  follow  that  he  is 
worshipped  by  all,  or  even  by  the  majority  of  those  who  form 
the  temple  ;  consequently  there  may  be  always  a  true  visible 
church.  ■  .  ' 

VI.  The  church  of  God,  under  the  former  dispensation, 
sometimes  became  invisible,  or  failed.  Thus  Elijah  says  : 
"  The  children  of  Israel  have  forsaken  thy  covenant,  thrown 
down  thy  altars,  and  slain  thy  prophets  with  the  sword;  and  I, 
even  I  only,  am  left"  (1  Kmgs  xix.  10.  14). 

i  This  explanation  is  given  by  St.  Jerome  (Dialog,  adv.  Lucifer.)  Augus- 
tine, lib.  de  Unitatc,  and  Sermo  36,  de -Verbis  Dora.  Cyprian  applies  the 
words  to  his  own  time,  and  explains  their  meaning  as  above.  "  Filius  ho- 
minis  cum  venerit,  putas  inveniet  fidem  in  terra  1  Videmus  fieri  quod 
iUe  praedixit.  In  Dei  timore,  in  lege  justitiae,  in  dilectione,  in  opere,  fides 
nulla  est.  Nemo  futurorum  metum  cogitat,  diem  Domini,  et  iram  Dei 
....  Quod  metueret  conscientia  nostra,  si  crederet ;  quia  non  credit  omni- 
no,  nee  metuit ;  si  autem  crederet  et  caveret ;  si  caveret  evaderet." — De 
Unit.  260. 


CHAP.  III.]  OBJECTIONS.  61, 

Answer.  (1.)  Moses  had  prophesied  or  intimated  the  falhng 
away  of  the  children  of  Israel  (Deut.  xxviii.  xxix.  25,  26,  xxx. 
17).  (2.)  The  kingdom  of  Judah  retained  the  true  worship  of 
God,  at  the  time  Elijah  spoke, 

VII.  The  church  of  Christ  was  invisible  during  the  time  of 
Arianism. 

Ansiucr.  Besides  the  great  Athanasius,  there  were  numerous 
confessors  of  the  truth  in  all  parts  of  the  world  ;  and  the 
church  generally  held  the  orthodox  faith  simply,  though  Arian 
bishops  were  forcibly  intruded  on  her,  and  some  other  bishops 
were  apostate,  and  many  were  deceived  for  a  time,  by  artfully- 
contrived  and  ambiguous  confessions  of  faith,  which  they  re- 
jected as  soon  as  they  discovered  their  deceit ;  but  orthodoxy 
was  always  maintained  in  the  church.  "  The  church,"  says 
Augustine,  "  is  sometimes  obscured,  and  as  it  were  clouded, 
by  the  midtitude  of  scandals,  when  sinners  bend  their  bows, 
that  they  may  privily  shoot  at  them  that  are  true  of  heart ;  but 
even  then  it  is  conspicuous  in  its  firmest  members  ;  .  .  .  .  Per- 
haps it  was  not  said  in  vain,  '  as  the  stars  of  heaven,  and  as 
the  sand  on  the  sea-shore  ;'  that  by  the  stars  of  heaven  might 
be  understood  the  fewer,  firmer,  more  renowned  ;  and  by  the 
sand  on  the  sea-shore,  that  great  multitude  of  the  carnal  and 
weak,  which  sometimes,  in  peaceable  times,  appears  free  and 
quiet,  but  sometimes  is  covered  and  disturbed  by  the  waves  of 
tribulation  and  temptation.""^ 

VIII.  The  church  of  Christ  was  invisible  during  the  Papal 
domination. 

Answer.  I  deny  that  it  was  so  :  part  of  the  church  was  in- 

. e . _ 

k  "  Ipsa  est  quae  aliquando  obscuratur,  et  tamquam  obnubilatur  multitu- 
dinc  scandalorum,  quando  peccatores  intendunt  arcum,  ut  sagittent  in  ob- 
scura  luna  rectos  corde.  Sed  etiam  tunc  in  suis  firmissimis  eminet  .... 
fortassc  non  frustra  dictum  sit,  '  sicut  stellae  cceli,  et  sicut  arena  quse  est  ad 
Oram  maris  :'  ut  in  stellis  cceli  pauciores,  iirmiores,  clarioresque  intelligan- 
tur;  in  arena  autem  maritimi  littoris  magna  multitudo  iiifirmorum  atque 
carnalium,  qua2  aliquando  tranqviillitate  temporis  quieta  et  libera  apparet, 
aliquando  autem  tribulationum  et  tentationum  fluctibus  operitur  atque  turba- 
tur." — August.  Epist.  xciii.  al.  xlviii.  torn.  ii.  p.  243.  ed.  Bened. 


62  VISIBILITY    OF    THE    CHURCH.  [pART  I. 

deed  subdued  by  the  pontiffs,  but  the  church  at  large  existed 
and  was  visible,  as  I  shall  hereafter  prove. 
■    IX.  If  the  church  of  Christ  is  always  visible,  the  Protestant 
and    Reformed    church    could   not  have    been   the  church  of 
Christ,  for  it  was  not  visible  before  the  Reformation. 

Answe?'.  (1.)  I  shall  hereafter  prove  that  although  the  Lu- 
theran and  Reformed  communities,  as  such,  were  not  churches 
of  Christ,  yet  that  they  were  not  cut  off  from  the  church,  but 
were  so  far  united  to  it,  as  to  be  capable  of  salvation.  (2.)  The 
British  churches  have  always  been  visible. 

X.  If  the  church  of  Christ  is  always  visible,  the  Reforma- 
tion was  unjustifiable  ;  for  the  xixth  article  of  the  Church  of 
England,  and  the  Lutheran,  and  other  Confessions,  affirm  that 
the  visible  church  is  a  society  in  which  "  the  pure  word  of  God 
is  preached,"  and  "  the  sacraments  duly  administered  "  in  "all 
things  necessary."  Therefore  there  was  no  need  of  reformation  ; 
and  those  who  opposed  the  doctrine  of  the  visible  Roman 
church,  were  enemies  of  Christ. 

Answer.  The  pure  word  of  God  means  the  doctrine  cer- 
tainly revealed  by  Jesus  Christ,  neither  mutilated  nor  corrupted 
by  heresies.  The  church,  generally,  never  taught  any  other. 
But  erroneous  opinions,  not  directly  contrary  to  faith,  and  su- 
perstitious practices,  were  introduced  by  individuals,  and  be- 
came prevalent ;  and  hence  it  became  necessary  to  correct  and 
reform  abuses.^  The  Reformation  was  not  directed  against 
any  doctrines  defined  by  the  Catholic  church,  as  will  be  seen 
in  the  course  of  this  work. 

XI.  Several  Protestant  divines  have  considered  the  church 
as  sometimes  invisib'e. 

Answer.  (1.)  With  Dr.  Field,  I  deny  that  the  Protestants 
have  generally  said  so  ;  I  have  proved  the  contrary.  (2.)  The 
authority  of  a  few  recent  theologians  is  to  be  entirely  disre- 
garded when  opposed  to  Scripture  and  the  sentiments  of  the 
church  generally,  which  it  is  in  this  instance. 

1  For  proof  that  erroneous  opinions  and  practices  may  for  a  time  prevail 
very  commonly  in  the  Catholic  church,  see  Part  iv.  Chapter  vi. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

ON  THE   UNITY  OF  THE   CHURCH  IN  RESPECT  OF   COMMUNION. 

The  question  of  the  unity  of  the  church  embraces  many 
topics  of  the  highest  importance  in  rehgious  controversy.  I 
propose  to  treat  of  it  under  the  two  general  heads  of  Unity  in 
Communion  and  Unity  in  Faith.  The  former  of  these  is  to 
be  the  subject  of  our  present  consideration.  f 

I  design  to  prove, 

First,  That  external,  visible  communion  between  all  Chris- 
tians, in  matters  of  religion,  was  instituted  and  commanded  by 
God. 

Secondly,  That  separation  from  this  communion,  either  by  a 
voluntary  act,  or  by  the  legitimate  judgment  of  the  church 
itself,  excludes  from  the  church  or  the  kingdom  of  Christ. 

Thirdly,  That  there  is  no  promise  that  external  communion 
shall  never  be  interupted  in  the  Catholic  church. 

From  these  principles  several  conclusions  will  be  deduced, 
which  may  greatly  aid  us  in  distinguishing  the  church  of  Christ. 

,     SECTION  I. 

ON    THE    OBLIGATION    OF    EXTERNAL    COMMUNION. 

The  general  duty  of  religious  communion  among  Christians 
is  to  be  inferred  from  their  mutual  relations,  from  the  duly  of 
charity  enjoined  by  Christ  and  the  Apostles,  from  the  practice 
of  the  church  instituted  by  them,  and  finally,  from  universal 
tradition  and  the  general  consent  of  professing  Christians. 

1.  All  Christians  "  are  the  children  of  God  by  faith  in  Christ 
Jesus  "  (Gal.  iii.  26),  who  is  "  the  first-born  among  many 
brethren  "  (Rom.  viii.  29).  As  brethren  they  are  bound  to  all 
the  duties  of  the  fraternal  relation  in  religion  ;  and  this  neces- 


64  UNITY   OF   COMMUNION  A  CHRISTIAN   DUTY.    [P.  I.  CII.  IV. 

^sarily  infers  a  visible  communion  and  amicable  intercourse  in 
religious  matters.  Christ  is  described  in  Scripture  as  "  the 
head  of  the  body,  the  church"  (Col.  i.  18) ;  and  Christians  are 
"  one  body  in  Christ,  and  every  one  members  one  of  another  " 
(Rom.  xii.  5.)  This  implies  the  very  closest  ties  and  strongest 
mutual  interest  between  all  Christians  ;  and  therefore,  as  a 
necessary  consequence,  their  external  communion. 

2.  The  duty  of  charity,  so  often  urged  by  the  Saviour  him- 
self, involves,  necessarily,  the  same  thing  :  "A  new  command- 
ment I  give  unto  you,  that  ye  love  one  another  ;  as  I  have  loved 
you,  that  ye  also  love  one  another  "  (John  xiii.  34).  Obedience 
to  this  precept  would  necessarily  lead  to  that  perfect  unity,  for 
which  he  so  earnestly  supplicated  in  these  words  :  "  Neither 
pray  I  for  these  alone,  but  for  them  also  which  shall  believe  in 
me  through  their  word,  that  they  all  may  be  one  :  as  Thou, 
Father,  art  in  me,  and  I  in  Thee,  that  they  also  may  be  one  in 
us  ...  .  that  they  may  be  one  even  as  ive  are  :  I  in  them,  and 
thou  in  me,  that  they  may  be  made  pei'fect  in  one  :  and  that 
the  world  may  know  that  thou  hast  sent  me,  and  hast  loved 
them,  as  thou  hast  loved  me "  (John  xvii.  20 — 23).  This 
perfect  unity,  for  which  our  blessed  Saviour  so  earnestly  prayed, 
was  to  be  the  result  of  Christian  charity  ;  and  it  obviously 
includes  the  notion  of  external  communion  in  all  religious 
matters,  for  how  could  those  who  should  refuse  to  hold  any 
religious  intercourse  with  their  brethren,  be  accounted  in  any 
way  obedient  to  the  dictates  of  divine  charity  ? 

3.  Accordingly  the  Apostles  not  only  urged  unceasingly  the 
necessity  of  possessing  this  holy  virtue,  "  the  bond  of  perfect- 
ness,"  but  of  fulfilling  all  the  duties  of  external  intercourse 
w^hich  flowed  from  it.  Their  admonitions  were  :  "  That  ye 
stand  fast  in  one  spirit,  with  one  mind  striving  together  for  the 
faith  of  the  gospel ;"  "  Let  us  walk  by  the  same  rule,  let  us 
mind  the  same  thing"  (Phil.  i.  27,  iii.  16);  "Not  forsaking 
the  assemhling  of  oiirselves  together,  as  the  manner  of  some 
is  "  (Heb.  X.  25) ;  "  Be  ye  all  of  one  mind,  having  compassion 
one  of  another,  love  as  brethren,"  &c.  (1  Pet.  iii.  8)  ;  "  With 


SECT.    I.]  ■-        UNITY    OF    COMMUNION.  65 

long-suffering  forbearing  one  another  in  love,  endeavouring  to 
keep  the  unity  of  the  Spirit  in  the  bond  of  peace  "  (Eph.  iv.  2, 
3)  ;  "  Fulfil  ye  my  joy  .  .  being  of  one  mind  .  .  Let  nothing 
be  done  through  strife  or  vain  glory  "  (Phil.  ii.  2)  :  and,  finally, 
what  is  strongest  of  all :  "  Now  I  beseech  you,  brethren,  by 
the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,  that  ye  all  speak  the  same  things, 
and  that  there  be  no  divisions  among  you,  but  that  ye  be  per- 
fectly joined  together  in  the  same  mind,  and  in  the  same 
judgment.  For  it  hath  been  declared  unto  me  of  you,  my 
brethren  ....  that  there  are  contentions  among  you.  Now 
this  I  say,  that  every  one  of  you  saith,  I  am  of  Paul,  and  I  of 
Apollos,  and  I  of  Cephas,  and  I  of  Christ,"  &c.  (1  Cor.  i.  10 
— 12).  Nothing  can  prove  more  plainly  the  religious  commu- 
nion of  the  Christian  brethren,  and  the  holy  zeal  of  the  apostle 
to  preserve  it  perfect  and  unimpaired  by  the  least  division. 

4.  We  observe  the  effects  of  such  exhortations  and  instruc- 
tions in  the  state  of  the  church  then.  In  every  place  the 
brethren  assembled  together  to  partake  of  the  "  one  bread " 
which  united  them  by  such  sacred  ties,  and  to  hear  the  exhor- 
tations of  the  same  "  rulers "  who  were  established  in  the 
church  by  God,  to  "give  account  for  their  souls."  And  farther, 
the  Christians  of  the  church  in  each  particular  locality,  com- 
municated with  their  brethren  in  all  other  places,  as  they  had 
opportunity.  The  churches  of  Macedonia,  of  Corinth,  and 
Galatia,  made  contributions  for  those  of  Judea.  The  church 
of  Antioch  sent  relief  to  the  brethren  in  Judea,  and  transmitted 
it  to  the  elders  of  that  Church  by  the  hands  of  Barnabas  and 
Saul ;  and  they  again  evinced  their  communion  by  sending 
messengers  to  consult  the  apostles  who  presided  there.  The 
church  of  Ephesus  wrote  to  the  disciples  in  Achaia,  exhorting 
them  to  receive  Apollos  (Acts  xviii.  27).  Paul  was  accom- 
panied to  Troas  by  members  of  the  churches  of  Berea, 
Thessalonica,  Derbe,  and  Asia ;  and  all  were  present  when 
the  church  at  Troas  met  to  "  break  bread  "  (Acts  xx.  4.  7). 
St.  Paul  commanded  the  Romans  to  receive  Phoebe,  a  dea- 
coness  of  Cenchrea,  "in  the  Lord"  (Rom.  xvi.  1).     "The 

VOL.    I. — 9 


66  UNITY    OF    COMMUNION.  [P.    I.    CH.    IV. 

churches  of  Christ"  saluted  the  faithful  of  Rome  (xvi.  16). 
The  churches  of  Asia  "  saluted"  that  of  Corinth  (1  Cor.  xvi. 
19).  Letters  of  commendation  were  given  to  the  faithful  who 
went  from  one  church  to  another  in  travelling,  or  for  some 
lawful  cause  (2  Cor.  iii.  1).  The  Colossians  were  enjoined  to 
salute  the  brethren  of  Laodicea,  and  to  cause  their  epistles  to 
be  read  in  the  church  of  the  Laodiceans,  and  likewise  to  read 
the  epistle  from  Laodicea  (Col.  iv.  15,  16). 

It  is  clear  then,  that  the  churches  of  Christ  all  held  commu- 
nion in  various  ways  ;  aiding  each  other,  exchanging  salutations, 
admitting  those  who  brought  letters  of  commendation  to  the 
assemblies  and  rites  of  the  church,  seeking  for  mutual  advice. 
This  was  all  instituted  by  the  Apostles  in  accordance  with  the 
will  of  God. 

The  same  external  communion  and  intercourse  continued  in 
the  church.  Thus  the  Roman  church  had  a  custom,  accounted 
ancient  in  the  second  century,  of  sending  pecuniary  aid  to  that 
of  Corinth,  and  many  others.^  The  same  church,  under  its 
bishop,  St.  Clement,  wrote  to  the  Corinthians,  exhorting  them 
to  unity.  Ignatius,  bishop  of  Antioch,  wrote  to  many  churches ; 
Dionysius,  bishop  of  Corinth,  followed  his  example ;''  the 
venerable  Polycarp  came  to  Rome  to  consult  on  the  time  of 
keeping  Easter ;  and  Anicetus,  the  bishop,  to  testify  his  com- 
munion, permitted  him  to  consecrate  the  eucharist  in  his 
presence.''  Finally,  the  use  of  commendatory  letters  was 
universal;'^  and  the  bishops  and  presbyters  assembled  in 
numerous  councils,  and  sent  their  judgments  and  circular  epis- 
tles to  all  churches  throughout  the  world. 

5.  The  doctrine   of  all  Christians,  from  the  earliest  ages, 
was  in  perfect  accordance  with  this  apostolical  practice.     They 


*  Dionysius,  bishop  of  Corinth,  states  this  in  an  epistle  to  Soter  of  Rome. 
-Euseb.  Hist.  iv.  23.     Dionysius  of  Alexandria,  also. — Euseb.  vii.  4, 
•^  Euseb.  Hist.  iv.  23. 
'  Irenaeus,  cited  by  Eusebius,  v.  24. 
d  Bingham,  Origines  Eccles.  v.  1.  s.  3, 


SECT.   II.]  SEPARATION    FROM    THE   CHURCH.  67 

esteemed  it  a  most  grievous  and  inexcusable  sin,  to  separate 
from  the  communion  of  the  church  ;  and  regarded  all  who  did 
so,  as  cut  off  from  Christ.  The  very  same  doctrine  has  been 
confessed  by  professing  Christians  of  all  "  denominations  "  in 
later  ages,  but  I  reserve  for  the  succeeding  section  the  proof 
of  this  general  consent. 

SECTION  11. 

ON    SCHISM    AND    SEPARATION    FROM    THE    CHURCH. 

Particular  churches  were  instituted  by  the  apostles  in  obe- 
dience to  the  divine  will,  not  to  divide,  but  to  organize  the 
church  universal.  Their  establishment  was  necessary,  to 
provide  for  the  ordinary  exercise  of  divine  worship  in  common, 
and  for  the  preservation  of  religion ;  because,  from  the  univer- 
sahty  of  the  Christian  society,  it  was  impossible  that  the  same 
teachers  should  ordinarily  instruct  all  nations  ;  but  this  arrange- 
ment, which  was  rendered  essential  by  the  constitution  of 
human  nature,  could  never  impair  the  sacred .  relations  of 
fraternity  and  fellow-membership,  which  resulted  from  their 
mutual  communion  with  God,  nor  the  duty  of  external  com- 
munion with  all  Christians,  which  followed  from  those  rela- 
tions.*^ Hence  the  communion  of  the  church  is  two-fold,  and 
there  may  be  offences  against  it  in  two  ways  :  either  in  dividing 
the  communion  of  a  particular  church,  or  in  dividing  that  of  the 
universal  church.  The  one  arises  when  professing  Christians 
divide,  or  refuse  to  communicate  with  the  particular  church  of 
which  they  are  members  :  the  other,  when  particular  churches 
refuse  to  communicate  with  the  universal  church  ;  that  is,  with 
the  great  body  of  Christians.  The  offence  against  communion 
is  called  schism;  and  schism,  in  its  extremest  degree,  is 
separation,  dissent,  or  (as  it  is  sometimes  called)  heresy. 
Division,  or  schism,  is>  partial,  when  no  rival  worship  is  estab- 

«  "  Though  the  Church  in  the  world  be  one,  yet  every  city  has  its  own 
Church,  and  it  is  one  in  all,  for  though  there  are  many,  it  is  one  in  many." 
— Hilarius  Pictav.  Commentar.  in  Ps.  xiv.  p.  62.  ed.  Ben. 


68  SEPARATION    FROM    THE    CHURCH.       [P.  I.  CH.  IV. 

lished,  or  when  the  communion  of  the  great  body  of  the  church 
is  not  rejected,  nor  withdrawn  by  a  legitimate  judgment :  but 
when  one  or  more  professing  Christians  separate  themselves 
from  the  communion  of  a  particular  church,  and  from  that  of 
the  great  body  of  Christians,  or  are  cut  off  from  it  by  a  regular 
and  legitimate  judgment,  they  are  totally  separated  from  the 
church  of  God. 

I  shall  first  speak  of  voluntary  separation  from  the  church, 
and  afterwards  of  separation  by  excommunication. 

1.  Schism,  even  in  the  smallest  degree  possible,  was  forbid- 
den by  the  apostles  :   "  I  beseech  you,  brethren,  by  the  name 
of  Jesus  Christ,  that  ye   all  speak  the  same  thing,    and  that 
there  be  no  divisions  among  you,  but  that  ye  be  perfectly  joined 
together,""  &c.  (I   Cor.  i.  10)  ;  and  the  oflfence  of  raising  such 
divisions  was  so  serious,  that  they  who  were  guilty  of  it  were 
not  to  be  treated  as   Christians, — they  were  to  be  separated 
from  communion  :   "  Now  I  beseech  you,  brethren,  marli  them 
which  cause  divisions  and   offences,  contrary  to  the  doctrine 
which  ye  have  learned  ;  and  avoid  theyn,  for  they  that  are  such, 
serve  not  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ''''  (Rom.  xvi.  17,  18).     They 
are  thus  classed  with  "  fornicators,  covetous,  idolaters,  railers, 
drunkards,  extortioners,"  with  whom  also  Christians  are  "  not 
to  keep  company  "  (1  Cor.  v.  11).     If  it  be  supposed,  as  it  has 
been  by  some,  that  by  "  them  which  caused  divisions,"  was 
here  meant  only  such  as  excited  distwbance  in  some  particular 
church  ;  how  much  more  grievous  was  the  offence  of  actually 
separating  totally  from  the  communion  of  Christians,   estab- 
lishing a  rival  worship,  and  a  rival  church,   and  endeavouring 
to  seduce  and  tempt  the  brethren  to  forsake  the  society  of  the 
faithful,  and  of  those  pastors  whom  God  had  commanded  them 
to  "obey"  (Heb.  xiii,  17).     The  Apostle,  whose  spirit  was  all 
charity  and  affection,  in  speaking  of  such   men,  reveals  the 
awful  truth  that  they  had  never  been  known  to  Christ : ,  "  They 
went  out  from  us,  but  they  were  7iot  of  us,  for  if  they  had  been 
of  us,  they  would  no  doubt  have  continued  with  us  ;"  their 
separation  was  by  an  act  of  divine  judgment,  manifesting  their 


SECT.    II.]  SEPARATION    FROM    THE    CHURCH.  6f 

estrangement  from  Christ :  "  They  went  out,  that  they  might 
he  made  ?namfest,  that  they  were  not  all  of  us."  "  But  ye," 
he  proceeds,  addressing  those  that  remained,  "  have  an  unction 
from  the  Holy  One,  and  ye  know  all  things"  (1  John  ii.  19, 
20). 

The  character  of  separation  is  again  drawn  by  Jude,  the  apos- 
tle :  "  These  be  they  who  separate  themselves,  sensual,  not 
having  the  SpirW''  (Jude  19) ;  and  hence  it  was  that  the  Fa- 
thers taught  that  no  good  men  can  possibly  be  among  those, 
who  voluntarily  forsake  the  church.  "  Let  no  one  imagine," 
says  Cyprian,  "  that  good  men  can  depart  from  the  church  : 
the  wind  scattereth  not  the  wheat,  nor  doth  the  storm  overthrow 
the  tree  supported  by  a  solid  root.  Empty  straws  are  tossed 
by  the  tempest ;  weak  trees  are  prostrated  by  the  violence  of 
the  whirlwind.  Such  as  these  are  execrated  and  smote  by  John 
the  apostle,  saying :  *  They  went  out  from  us,  but  they  were 
not  of  us,'  &c."^  Augustine  adds  his  testimony  to  the  same 
doctrine :  "  Let  us  hold  it  as  a  thing  unshaken  and  firm,  that 
no  good  men  can  divide  themselves  from  the  church."^  It  is 
not  indeed  to  be  supposed  or  believed  for  a  moment,  that  divine 
grace  would  permit  the  really  holy  and  justified  members  of 
Christ  to  fall  from  the  way  of  life.  He  would  only  permit  the 
unsanctified,  the  enemies  of  Christ,  to  sever  themselves  from 
that  fountain,  where  his  spirit  is  given  freely.  "  In  the  church," 
says  Irenceus,  "  did  God  place  the  apostles,  prophets,  teachers, 
and  every  operation  of  the  Spirit,  whereof  they  are  not  partakers, 
who  do  not  run  unto  the  church,  but  defraud  themselves  of  life 
by  their  evil  opinions  and  most  wicked  deeds  ;    for  where  the 

^  "  Nemo  existimet  bonos  de  ecclesia  posse  discedere.  Triticum  non 
rapit  ventus,  nee  arborem  solida  radice  fundatam  procella  subvertit.  Inanes 
paleae  tempestate  jactantiir,  invalidae  arbores  turbinis  incursione  evertuntur. 
Hos  execratur  et  percutit  Joannes  apostolus'  dicens,"  &c. — Cypr.  de  Uni- 
tate,  p.  256.  ed.  Pamel. 

s  "  Inconcussum  firmumque  teneamus,  nuUos  bonos  ab  ea  (ecclesia)  s© 
posse  dividere." — Adv.  Parmenian.  lib.  iii.  c.  5. 


70  SINNERS    ALONE    SEPARATE   "THEMSELVES,     [p.  I.  CH.  IV. 

church  is,  there  is  the  Spirit  of  God  ;  and  where  the  Spirit  of 
God  is,  there  also  the  church  and  every  grace  exist."^ 

We  may  therefore  conclude,  that  voluntary  separation  from 
the  church  of  Christ  is  a  sin  against  our  brethren,  against  our- 
selves, against  God ;  a  sin  which,  unless  repented  of,  is  eter- 
nally destructive  to  the  soul.  The  heinous  nature  of  this  offence 
is  incapable  of  exaggeration,  because  no  human  imagination,  and 
no  human  tongue  can  adequately  describe  its  enormity. 

2.  It  is  certain  that  the  primitive  Christians  regarded  com- 
munion between   Christians   as  a  thing  absolutely  necessary, 
and  viewed  those  who  separated  from  it  as  sinners.     "  Remain 
inseparably  united  to  Jesus  Christ  and  your  Bishop,  and  the 
ordinances  of  the  apostles,"  said  the  martyr  Ignatius  :    "  He 
who  is  within  the  altar  is  clean ;  but  he  who  is  without,  that  is 
without  the  bishop,  and  the  presbyters,  and  the  deacons,  is  not 
clean."'     "As  children  of  light  and  truth,  avoid  the  division  of 
unity,  and  the  evil  doctrines  of  heretics."*^     Irenosus  says : — 
*'  The  spiritual  man  will  also  judge  those  who  work  divisions  ; 
vain  men,  devoid  of  the  love  of  God,  seeking  their  own  advan- 
tage more  than  the  unity  of  the  church  ;   who  for  trifling,  nay 
for  any  causes,  rend  and  divide  the  great  and  glorious  body  of 
Christ,  and  as  far  as  in  them  lies,  slay  it ;    who  speak  peace, 
and  work  warfare  ;  who  truly  strain  at  the  gnat,  and  swallow 
the  camel ;  for  no  improvement  can  be  made  by  them  so  great, 
as  is  the  evil  of  schism."^     Cyprian  continues  the  chain  of  tra- 
dition :   "  Whosoever,  divorced  from  the  church,  is  united  to  an 


'■  "  In  ecclesia  enim,  inquit,  posuit  Deus  apostolos,  prophetas,  doctores, 
et  universam  reliquam  operalionem  Spiritus,  cujus  non  sunt  participes  omnes 
qui  non  currunt  ad  ecclesiam,  sed  semetipsos  fraudant  a  vita  per  sententiam 
malam  et  operationem  pessimam.  Ubi  enim  ecclesia,  ibi  et  Spiritus  Dei ; 
et  ubi  Spiritus  Dei,  illic  ecclesia  et  omnis  gratia." — Adv.  Hasres.  iii.  24. 
p.  223. 

'  Epist.  ad  Trail. 

k  Epist.  ad  Philadelph. 

'  "  Nulla  enim  ab  eis  tanta  potest  fieri  correctio,  quanta  est  schismatis 
pernicies." — Adv.  Haeres.  iv.  c.  33.  al.  62.  p.  272. 


SECT.  II.]      SEPARATION   CONDEMNKD  BY  THE  FATHERS.  71 

adulteress,  is  separated  from  the  church's  promises  ;  nor  shall 
that  man  attain  the  rewards  of  Christ,  who  relinquishes  his 
church.  He  is  a  stranger,  he  is  profane,  he  is  an  enemy  .... 
He  who  assembles,  except  with  the  church,  scatters  the  church 
of  Christ."""  "  An  enemy  of  the  altar,  a  rebel  against  Christ's 
sacrifices  ;  as  to  faith,  false  ;  as  to  religion,  sacrilegious  ;  a  dis- 
obedient servant,  an  impious  son,  a  hostile  brother ;  contemns 
the  bishops  and  forsakes  the  priests  of  God,  dares  to  constitute 
another  altar,  to  offer  another  prayer  with  unlawful  words,  to 
profane  the  truth  of  the  Lord's  oblation  by  false  sacrifices  ; 
nor  deigns  to  know,  that  he  who  contends  against  the  divine 
ordinance,  is  punished  for  his  audacious  rashness  by  the  divine 
judgment.""  Dionysius  of  Alexandria  writes  thus  to  Novatus, 
who  had  formed  a  schism  from  the  church  of  the  Romans  :  "If, 
as  you  say,  you  were  compelled  unwillingly  (to  be  ordained 
head  of  the  new  sect)  you  will  prove  it  by  your  voluntary  return. 
It  were  indeed  better  to  have  suffered  any  evil,  than  to  have 
divided  the  church  of  God  ;  nor  would  martyrdom,  for  the  sake 
of  not  dividing,  have  been  less  glorious  ;  yea,  in  my  opinion, 
more  so :  for,  in  one  case,  martyrdom  is  for  the  sake  of  one's  own 
soul ;  in  the  other,  for  the  whole  church.  If  even  now  you  will 
persuade  or  oblige  the  brethren  to  return  to  concord,  your  merit 
will  be  greater  than  your  offence.  The  one  will  not  be  imputed, 
the  other  will  be  praised.  But  if  they  should  be  disobedient, 
and  you  cannot  accomplish  it,  save  your  own  soul."°  It  would 
fill  volumes  to  transcribe  the  various  arguments  of  the  Fathers 
against  separation  from  the  church. p     The  holy  Cyprian  wrote 

""  "  Quisquis  ab  ecclesia  segregatus  adulterae  jungitur,  a  promissis  eccle- 
sise  separatur.  Nee  perveniet  ad  Christi  praemia,  qui  relinquit  ecclesiam 
Christi.  Alienus  est :  profanus  est :  hostis  est  ...  .  Qui  alibi  praeter  ec- 
clesiam colligit,  Christi  ecclesiam  spargit." — De  Unit.  p.  254. 

»  Ibid.  p.  258. 

°  "EtTe/  fxh  yxf  h.%1  tov  otmuv  Trx&fiv,  v'Tif  tou  ^«  S'titx.i-^oit  tw  i:cic}^>i9-la.Y  tou  0wD 

.  .   .  .  tl  Si    iTTuSoUVTOlV    dlTl/V^TOI));,    (Tw^CeV     (Tw^l  T/IV     iTiXUTQU    -^V^^Y. EuSCb.    Hist. 

vi.  45. 
P  [It  is  to  be  observed,  that  all  the  passages  above  cited,  indeed  all  the 


78  PROTESTANTS    CONDEMN    SEPARATION.       [p.  I.  CH.  IV. 

a  treatise  against  it,i  and  Optatus,  Augustine,  and  many  others, 
have  written  copiously  against  the  various  sects  of  the  Nova- 
tians,  Donatists,  Manichaeans,  &c.  who  had  separated  them- 
selves from  the  communion  of  the  church.  Augustine  declares, 
that  "  there  is  nothing  more  grievous  than  the  sacrilege  of 
schism.""^ 

3.  Nor  were  these  merely  the  sentiments  of  the  early  ages, 
they  were  always  received  by  the  whole  body  of  Christians  up 
to  the  period  of  the  Reformation,  and  by  the  infinite  majority  of 
professing  Christians  for  a  long  time  after.  All  agreed  that 
Christians  ought  to  hold  external  communion  with  their  brethren 
everywhere,  and  that  separation  from  the  church  was  a  grievous 
sin.  Calvin  affirms,  that  "  a  departure  from  the  visible  church 
is  a  denial  of  God  and  Christ ;  wherefore  we  must  beware  of  so 
wicked  a  dissent,  because  when  we  are  attempting,  so  far  as  in 
us  lies,  the  ruin  of  God's  truth,  we  deserve  to  be  crushed  be- 
neath the  thunders  of  his  extremest  wrath.  Nor  can  any  more 
atrocious  crime  be  imagined,  than  the  violation,  by  sacrilegious 
perfidy,  of  that  marriage,  which  the  only  begotten  Son  of  God 
has  deigned  to  contract  with  us."'     The  nonconformist  Baxter 

denunciations  of  schism  previous  to  the  Donatist  secession,  refer  to  it,  not 
as  between  churches  and  cluirches,  nor  between  a  part  of  the  Catholic  body 
of  Christ  and  the  remainder,  nor  between  a  body  of  men  once  members  of 
the  church  universal  and  the  whole  body  of  believers  with  whom  they  had 
then  been  associated  ;  but  as  between  an  individual,  or  individuals,  and  the 
bishops  to  whose  flock  the  providence  of  God  had  assigned  them.  Schism, 
with  the  ante-Nicene  fathers,  is  separation  from  the  communion  of  a 
church,  involving  as  a  necessary  consequence,  separation  from  the  church 
Catholic.  Such  separation  they  regarded  as  the  denial  or  forsaking  of 
Christ,  represented  by  his  oltto^oko!  or  sent  servant,  who  constituted  the  cen- 
tre of  unity  for  each  individual  member,  clerical  or  lay,  of  the  church  com- 
mitted to  his  charge.  The  latter  were  to  look  beyond  that  centre  only  in 
the  case  of  rival  pretensions  to  a  see.  Then,  the  recognition  of  either  party 
by  the  church  Catholic  legitimated  his  claim.] 

<i  De  Unitate  Ecclesiae  Catholicae. 

r  Cont.  Parmenian.  ii.  2. 

8  "TJnde  sequitur,  discessionem  ab  ecclesia,  Dei  et  Christi  negationem 
^esse  :  quo  magis  a  tam  scelerato  dissidio  cavendum  est :  quia  dum  veritatis 


SECT.  II.]       SEPARATION  CONDEMNED  BY  DISSENTERS.  73 

says  :  "  He  that  is  out  of  the  church,  is  without  the  teaching,  the 
holy  worship,  the  prayers  and  the  disciphne  of  the  church ;  and  is 
out  of  the  way  where  the  Spirit  doth  come,  and  out  of  the  society 
which  Christ  is  especially  related  to  :  for  he  is  the  Saviour  of  the 
body,  and  if  we  once  leave  his  hospital,  we  cannot  expect  the  pre- 
sence and  help  of  the  physician.  Nor  will  he  be  a  pilot  to  them 
who  forsake  his  ship,  nor  a  captain  to  those  who  separate  from 
his  army.  Out  of  this  ark  there  is  nothing  but  a  deluge,  and 
no  place  of  rest  or  safety  for  a  soul."'  Owen  the  independent 
observes  of  the  communion  of  churches,  that  "  the  church  that 
confines  its  duty  unto  the  acts  of  its  own  assemblies,  cuts  itself 
off  from  the  external  communion  of  the  church  catholic ;  nor 
will  it  be  safe  for  any  man  to  commit  the  conduct  of  his  soul  to 
such  a  church  ;"'^'  and  again  :  "  That  particular  church  which 
extends  not  its  duty  beyond  its  own  assembhes  and  members, 
is  fallen  off  from  the  principal  end  of  its  institution.  And  every 
principle,  opinion,  or  persuasion,  that  inclines  any  church  to 
confine  its  care  and  duty  unto  its  own  edification  only,  yea,  or 
of  those  only  which  agree  with  it  in  some  peculiar  practice, 
makinff  it  nefflective  of  all  due  means  of  the  edification  of  the 
church  catholic,  is  schismatical."''     Owen  accordingly  admits 


Dei  ruinam,  quantum  in  nobis  est,  molimur,  dijrni  sumus  ad  quos  conterendos 
toto  irae  suae  impetu  fulmiuet.  Nee  ullum  atrocius  fiugi  crimen  potest,  quam 
sacrilega  perfidia  violare  conjugium,  quod  nobiscum  unigenitus  Dei  Filius 
contrahere  dignatus  est." — Calvin,  Institut.  iv.  c.  i.  ^10. 

t  Baxter's  "  Cure  of  Church  Division." 

"  True  nature  of  the  Gospel  Church,  p.  413. 

"  Ibid.  414,  415.  Even  in  the  present  day  the  Independents,  as  they 
say,  "  believe  that  Jesus  Christ  directed  his  followers  to  live  together  in 
Christian  fellowship,  and  to  maintain  the  communion  of  saints  ;  and  that 
for  this  purpose,  they  are  jointly  to  observe  all  divine  ordinances,  and  main- 
tain that  church  order  and  discipline,  which  is  either  expressly  enjoined  by 
inspired  institution,  or  sanctioned  by  the  undoubted  example  of  the  apostles, 
and  apostolic  churches." — Declaration  of  faith  of  the  Congregational  or 
Indep.  Dissenters,  a.d.  1833,  (No.  20.)  The  dissenting  "  Library  of  Eccl. 
Knowledge"  says,  that  among  the  '''^  duties  and  enjoyments"  of  churches,  is, 
^^  communion  with  other  churches,  in  letters  recommendatory  or  dismissory, 
VOL.  I. 10. 


74  SEPARATION   CONDEMNED  [p.  I.  CH.  IV, 

the  propriety,  and  even  necessity,  of  synods,  and  other  modes 
of  mutual  aids  and  communication.  Even  now  societies  of 
various  "denominations,"  hold  it  their  duty  to  communicate  with 
all  of  their  own  party.  The  Independents  and  Baptists  unite 
in  "  Unions,"  and  send  messages  to  their  brethren  in  America, 
and  elsewhere.  The  Presbyterians  meet  in  synods,  the  Meth- 
odists in  conference.  Lutherans,  Calvinists,  Romanists,  &c. 
all  feel  it  their  bounden  duty  to  communicate  with  those  whom 
they  regard  as  constituting  the  church  of  Christ ;  and  generally, 
the  separation  of  a  new  sect  from  any  of  their  communions  is 
regarded  as  wrong,  though  some  societies  are  prevented  by 
their  principles,  from  opposing  what  they  confess  to  be  a 
grievous  evil. 

4.  It  is  needless  to  spend  much  time  in  detailing  the  doctrine 
of  English  theologians,  and  of  our  churches  on  this  subject. 
The  canons  of  the  synod  of  London,  a.d.  1603,  excommuni- 
cate any  who  shall  separate  from  the  church,  or  who  shall  affirm 
that  any  meetings,  assemblies,  or  congregations  within  this  land, 
which  are  separated  from  the  established  churches,  may  rightly 
assume  the  name  of  true  churches.^  Nowell's  Catechism  says 
of  those,  "  who  cause  strife  and  dissent  in  the  church  and 
disturb  it  with  factions,  that  surli  rriRn  are  cut  oil  from  all  hope 
of  salvation  through  the  remission  of  sins,  until  they  agree  and 
are  reconciled  with  the  church. ""^  Archbishop  Usher  speaks  of 
communion  in  the  universal  church  as  follows  :  "  Thus  must 
we  conceive  of  the  catholic  church,  as  of  one  entire  body  made 
up  of  the  collection  and  aggregation  of  all  the  faithful  unto  the 
unity  thereof;  from  which  union  there  ariseth  unto  every  one 
of  them  such  a  relation  to,  and  a  dependence  upon  the  church 
catholic,    as    parts    use    to  have  in  respect  of  their  whole. 

when  members  remove  from  one  place  to  another.     These,  and  all  other 

expressions  of  Christian  regard  to  sister  churches are  a  part 

of  the  commtmion  of  saints,  which  constitutes  one  of  the  greatest  blessings 
of  the  true  Catholic  chtirch,''  &c. — On  ( "h.  Discipline,  Essays  on  Ch.  Polity 
vol.  ii.  p.  417. 

"'  Canons,  ix,  x,  and  xi.  "  P.  108.  Oxford  ed.  by  Jacobson. 


SECT.    II.]  BY  OUR  THEOLOGIANS.  75 

Whereupon  it  followelh,  that  neitlier  particular  persons,  nor 
particular  churches,  arc  to  work  as  several  divided  bodies  by 
themselves,  w^hich  is  the  ground  of  all  schism  ;  but  are  to 
teach,  and  to  be  taught,  and  to  do  all  other  Christian  duties,  as 
parts  conjoined  unto  the  whole  and  members  of  the  same 
commonwealth  or  corporation. "y  Bishop  Pearson  says  :  "  It 
is  necessary  to  believe  the  church  of  Christ,  which  is  but  one  ; 
that  being  in  it,  we  may  take  care  never  to  cast  ourselves  or  be 

ejected  out  of  it A  man  may  not  only  passively  and 

involuntarily  be  rejected,  but  also  may  by  an  act  of  his  own, 
cast  out  or  reject  himself,  not  only  by  plain  and  complete 
apostacy,  but  by  a  defection  from  the  unity  of  truth,  falling  into 
some  damnable  heresjr ;  or  by  an  active  separation,  deserting 
all  which  are  in  communion  with  the  catholic  church,  and  fall- 
ing into  an  irrecoverable  schism.  .  .  .  There  is  a  necessity  of 
believing  the  catholic  church,  because  except  a  man  be  of 
that,  he  can  be  of  none."^  Finally,  I  shall  cite  the  words  of 
Archbishop  Potter :  "  Whoever  is  separated  from  any  sound 
part  of  tlie  church  by  schism  or  just  excommunication,  is  by 
that  means  separated  from  the  whole  church.  Just  as  we  find 
in  natural  bodies,  that  in  one  body  there  are  many  members, 
and  whatever  is  united  to  any  one  of  them,  is  thereby  united  to 
the  whole  body  ;  as  on  the  contrary,  whatever  is  cut  off  from 
any  member,  does  by  that  separation  lose  its  union  with  the 
whole  body.  .  .  .  Whence  appears  the  necessity  which  every 
Christian  lies  under,  of  maintaining  communion  with  the  parti- 
cular church  wherein  he  lives,  in  order  to  his  communion  with 
the  church  catholic,  and  with  Christ  the  head  of  it."^ 

5.  We  may  infer  from  the  preceding  part  of  this  section,  that 
separation  from  the  Church  is  incapable  of  justification.  No 
excuse  can  be  admitted  in  the  case  of  positive  and  deadly  sin, 
except  the  plea  of  ignorance  ;  and  this  does  not  render  the  act 

y  Sermon  before  the  King,  on  Eph.  iv.  13. 
7.  On  the  Creed,  art.  Holy  Catholic  Church. 
^  Church  Government,  p.  459. 


76  SEPARATION  FROM  THE   CHtRCH        [p.    I.    CH.    IV. 

less  heinous,  though  he  who  commits  it  may  be  "  beaten  with 
few  stripes."  To  separate  openly  from  the  universal  church, 
or,  which  is  the  same  thing,  to  separate  from  a  particular 
church,  on  grounds  and  principles  which  equally  involve  sepa- 
ration from  the  imiversal  church,  is,  as  I  have  said,  inexcusa- 
ble ;  and  St.  Augustine  affirms  it  thus  :  "  Wc  are  certain  that 
no  one  can  justly  have  separated  himself  from  the  communion 
of  all  nations  ;"''  and  long  afterwards  Calvin  acknowledged  the 
same  :  "  Let  both  these  trutlis  remain  fixed  ;  that  he  who 
voluntarily  deserts  the  external  communion  of  a  church,  where 
the  word  of  God  is  preached  and  his  sacraments  administered, 
is  tuithout  excuse  ;  and  that  the  vices  of  few  or  of  many  are  no 
obstacle  to  prevent  us  from  professing  our  faith  there,  by  means 
of  the  ceremonies  instituted  by  God."" 

The  excuses  which  may  be  offered  are  of  various  sorts. 
Personal  edification  and  spiritual  improvement,  correction  of 
deficiencies  in  discipline,  rites,  &c.,  and  other  advantages  may 
be  alleged  to  justify  separation.  These  are  all  overthrown 
immediately  by  the  apostle  :  "  As  we  be  slanderously  reported 
and  as  some  affirm  that  we  say.  Let  us  do  evil  that  good  may 
come,  whose  damnation  is  just. ^^'^  Ircna^us  replied  to  a  similar 
argument  adduced  by  the  heretics  of  his  time  :  "  No  correction 
can  be  made  by  them  so  great,  as  is  the  mischief  of  schism."" 

It  may  be  said  that  it  is  necessary  to  forsake  the  church, 
because  its  external  communion  includes  evil  men  unsanctified 
by  the  Spirit  of  God.  But  the  church  is  compared  by  our 
Saviour  himself  to  a  net,  in  which  are  all  manner  of  fishes,  both 
good  and  bad  ;  to  a  field  in  which  tares  grow  to  the  harvest : 
and  the  churches  founded  by  the  apostles  contained  unsanctified 
members,  for  instance,  those  of  Corinth,  Pergamos,  Thyatira, 
Sardis,  &c.      The   true   church  can  never  be  free  from  evil 


b  "  Nos  autem  certi  sumus,  neminem  se  a  communione  omnium  gentium 
juste  separare  potuisse." — Epist.  93.  al.  48.  c.  9.  p.  242.  Tom.  ii.  ed* 
Bened. 

•^  Instit.  iv.  c.  1.  s.  19.  <^  Rom.  iii.  8. 

^  Adv.  Hseres.  lib.  iv.  c.  xxxiii.  al.  Ixii.  p.  272.  ed.  Benedict. 


SECT.    II.]       '  ■UNJUSTIFIABLE.  77 

members,  until  after  the  day  of  judgment,  and  he  who  pretends 
to  render  it  otherwise  sets  himself  above  Christ.  This  was 
the  heresy  of  the  Donatists,  against  whom  St.  Augustine  often 
and  convincingly  argued.  "  The  good,"  said  he,  "  are  not  to 
be  deserted  on  account  of  the  evil,  but  the  evil  to  be  tolerated 
on  account  of  the  good,  as  the  prophets  tolerated  those  against 
whom  they  spoke  such  great  things,  nor  did  they  relinquish 
communion  in  sacraments  with  that  people ;  as  our  Lord  him- 
self tolerated  the  wicked  Judas  unto  his  deserved  end,  and 
permitted  him  to  communicate  at  the  holy  supper  with  the 
innocent ;  as  the  apostles  tolerated  those  who  preached  Christ 
through  envy  ;  as  Cyprian  tolerated  the  covetousness  of  his 
colleagues,  which,  according  to  the  apostle,  he  called  idolatry."^ 
The  truth  is,  that  every  church  and  society  of  professing 
Christians,  without  exception,  contains  bad  men  and  hypocrites  ; 
and  were  this  a  sufficient  reason  to  separate  from  the  church, 
there  could  be  no  such  thing  in  the  world  as  church  commu- 
nion. Calvin's  doctrine  on  this  subject  I  have  cited  already  ; 
he  devotes  a  large  space  to  the  refutation  of  the  notion  that  the 
existence  of  evil  members  in  the  church  justifies  separation 
from  it.  The  Lutherans  too,  in  the  Apology  for  the  Confes- 
sion of  Augsburgh,  say  :  "  Christ  admonished  us  in  his  discour- 
ses on  the  church,  not  to  excite  schisms  through  our  offence  at 
the  private  vices  of  priests  or  people,  as  the  Donatists  wickedly 
did.  And  as  for  those  who  have  raised  schisms  because  they 
denied  the  lawfulness  of  the  clergy's  holding  possessions  or 
property,  we  judge  them  plainly  seditious."  &c.^ 

The  mere  existence  of  doctrinal  errors,  or  the  corruption  of 
rites  and  sacraments  in  any  church,  afford  no  excuse  whatever 
for  separation  from  its  communion.     The  abuses  of  the  Co- 

f  August.  Epist.  93.  al.  48.  c.  4.  torn.  ii.  p.  237.  ed.  Bened. 

g  "  Monuit  nqs  Christus  in  collationibus  de  ecclesia,  ne  offensi  privatis 
vitiis  sive  sacerdotum,  sive  populi,  schismata  excitemus ;  sicut  scelerate 
fecerunt  Donatista;.  Illos  vero,  qui  ideo  excitaverunt  schismata,  quia  ne- 
gabant  sacerdotibus  licere  tenere  possessiones  aut  proprium,  plane  seditiosos 
judicamus." — Apologia  Confessionis,  art.  iv.  de  ecclesia. 


78  SEPARATION    FROM    THE    CHURCH.  [p.    I.    CH.    IV. 

rinthians,  the  errors  of  the  Galatians,  did  not  justify  any  separa- 
tion from  those  churches ;  on  the  contrary  the  duty  of  union 
was  strongly  inculcated  on  them  by  the  apostle.  Calvin  affirms 
that  while  a  pure  ministry  of  the  word  and  sacraments  exists, 
"  a  church  is  never  to  be  rejected  as  long  as  it  persists  in  them, 
although  otherwise  it  abounds  in  faults.  Moreover,  somewhat 
of  corruption  might  creep  into  the  administration  of  the  sacra- 
ments themselves,  which  ought  not  to  alienate  us  from  its 
communion."^  If  the  doctrines  or  practice  of  his  particular 
church,  or  even  those  most  commonly  prevalent  around  him, 
appear  to  any  Christian  imperfect  or  corrupt,  it  is  an  office  of 
charity  to  endeavour  to  promote,  as  far  as  he  can,  a  purer  sys- 
tem, provided  it  be  done  with  humility  and  wisdom  ;  but  he 
should  not  forsake  the  body  of  Christ,  because  in  some  part  it 
may  be  ailing.  I  speak  here  only  of  faults  and  defects  which 
do  not  amount  to  a  rejection  of  what  God  has  plainly  revealed, 
or  to  a  manifest  contradiction  and  disobedience  to  his  command- 
ment; because  if  any  church  of  Christ  should  be  guilty  of 
such  a  rejection  and  contradiction,  and  obstinately  persist  in 
them,  it  would  be  apostate,  and  cease  ipso  facto  to  be  a  church 
of  Christ ;  and  therefore  he  who  should  forsake  its  communion, 
would  not  forsake  the  communion  of  the  church,  but  of  a  syna- 
gogue of  Satan  ;  and  in  this  case,  the  precept  of  Christ  would 
oblige  his  disciples  to  separate  utterly  from  the  apostate  com- 
munity, and  remain  united  with  the  true  church.  Separation 
from  such  a  society  is  as  much  a  duty  as  separation  from 
heathenism  and  idolatry  ;  and  therefore  it  is  a  case  which  affords 
no  justification  to  him  that  forsakes  the  church,  of  Christ. 
Those  who,  either  at  the  Reformation,  or  at  other  times,  pre- 
tended to  justify  their  voluntary  separation  from  any  society  of 
professing  Christians,  always  did  so  on  the  plea  that  it  was  an 
apostate  society,  and  therefore  not  a  church  of  Christ ;  and 
wherever  this  plea  was  well  founded  they  were  perfectly 
justified. 

''  Inslitut.  iv.  c.  i.  s.  12. 


SECT.  II.]     SEPARATION  BY  EXCOMMUNICATION.         79 


ON  SEPARATION  BY  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

6.  A  case  might  occur,  in  which  individuals  should  violate  the 
duty  of  charity  towards  some  of  the  brethren,  or  towards  the 
particular  church  of  which  they  were  members,  and  yet  should 
by  no  means  wish  to  separate  from  the  rest  of  the  brethren 
throughout  the  world,  but  rather  desire  to  retain  all  the  advan- 
tages resulting  from  their  communion.  In  a  case  like  this  the 
Christian  society  may  be  purified  from  such  false  brethren  by 
its  own  act.  .The  Apostolic  admonition:  "  Mark  them  which 
cause  divisions  and  offences,  contrary  to  the  doctrine  which  ye 
have  learned  :  and  avoid  them  ;"'  recognizes  the  right  and  the 
duty  of  Christians,  to  separate  themselves  from  those  that  offend 
extremely  against  charity ;  and  our  blessed  Saviour  authorizes 
those  against  whom  any  brother  has  trespassed,  and  who,  after 
repeated  endeavours,  cannot  induce  him  to  repent  of  his  fault, 
to  "  tell  it  unto  the  church  :  but  if  he  neglect  to  hear  the  church, 
let  him  be  unto  thee  as  a  heathen  man  and  a  publican."  "  Verily 
I  say  unto  you,"  he  adds,  "  Whatsoever  ye  shall  bind  on  earth 
shall  be  bound  in  heaven  ;  and  whatsoever  ye  shall  loose  on 
earth  shall  be  loosed  in  heaven."^  This  empowers  the  church 
to  take  cognizance  of  all  offences  against  charity.  The  decree 
of  the  church,  however,  is  to  be  supposed  necessarily  to  have 
two  conditions  ;  first,  that  it  be  founded  on  an  examination 
of  tJie  facts  of  the  case,  without  which  extreme  injustice 
might  occur  ;'  and  injustice  could  never  be  accordant  with  the 
design  of  the  righteous  and  merciful  Judge  of  all  the  earth  ; 
and  secondly,  that  the  judgment  of  the  church  be  unanimous,  or 
nearly  so.  The  judgment  of  the  church  greatly  divided  ;  or 
the  judgment  of  a  portion  of  the  church,  the  remainder  deliver- 
ing no  opinion,  could  not  be  invested  with  that  authority  and 
unity  which  arc  to  be  inferred  from  the  terms  used  by  our 
Saviour  :  "  If  he  shall  not  hear  the  church,''''  &c. 

'  Rom.  xvi.  17.  '' Matt,  xviii.  15— 18. 

'  That  Clu-ist  has  oiily  promised  his  assistance  and  authority  to  the 


80  SEPARATION  BY  EXCOMMUNICATION,    [p.  I.  CH.  IV. 

If  then  individuals  should  be  condemned  by  a  particular 
church,  but  that  sentence  should  be  disallowed  by  the  great 
body  of  the  church  universal,  they  are  not  cut  off  from  the 
church  of  Christ.  If  a  particular  church  should  be  condemned 
on  some  account  by  n.  portion  of  the  universal  church,  but  not 
by  another  considerable  portion,  it  is  not  to  be  held  as  heathen 
and  separated  ;  because  the  whole,  or  nearly  the  whole  body 
of  the  faithful,  has  not  united  in  the  judgment.  If  individuals 
or  churches  have  been  condemned  by  a  large  portion  of  the 
church  universal,  and  it  can  be  clearly  proved  that  the  facts  of 
the  case  have  not  been  investigated,  such  a  sentence  is  to  be 
held  invalid  and  unratified  in  heaven.  If  however  the  condem- 
nation of  the  universal  church  is  unanimous,  and  there  is  no 
proof  of  any  marked  injustice  in  the  proceedings,  those  who 
are  condemned  for  offences  against  charity,  ought  to  be  held  of 
all  the  brethren  as  "  heathen  men  and  publicans."     We  see 

church  on  such  conditions,  even  in  deciding  questions  of  faith,  is  asserted  by 
Melchior  Canus,  Tournely,  Delahogue,  and  the  Romish  theologians  gene- 
rally. The  first  says  :  "  Commune  est,  crede  mihi,  omnibus  ecclesis  judi- 
cibus,  ut  si  decreta  ediderint  temeritate  quadam,  sine  judicio,  repentino 
quasi  vento  incitati,  nihil  omnino  conficiant,  quod  solidum,  quod  grave) 
quod  ccrtum  habcatur."  (Loci  C'ommunes  v.  de  Conciliis,  p.  147.  cd. 
Patav.  1762.)  The  second  says,  tbat  Christ  only  promised  his  presence  to 
the  church  assembled  in  councils,  when  "  servata  suflragiorum  libertate,  et 
adhibita  humana  industria  et  diligentia,  veritatem  sedulo  inquirerent." 
(Pra^lect.  de  Eccl.  Christi,  t.  i.  quaest.  iii.  art.  3.  p.  384.)  See  also 
Delahogue,  de  Eccl.  cap.  iv.  quaest.  objectiones.  Bailly,  de  Eccl.  cap. 
XV.  in  fine  c.  xvi.  sect.  vii.  Bouvier  de  vera  Eccl.,  pars  i.  c.  ii  art.  v.  s.  2. 
Collet,  Institut.  Theolog.  Scholast,  torn.  i.  p.  30.  If  judgments  in  ques- 
tions of  faitli  and  discipline  are  null  where  the  ordinary  rules  of  judgment 
have  been  manifestly  transgressed,  they  must  be  also  in  all  questions  aflTect- 
ing  the  unily  of  the  church,  because  the  latter  is  not  less  important  than 
faith  itself.  In  fact,  Van  Espen  (Tractatus  de  Censuris,  c.  5.  s.  i.)  ob- 
serves, that  no  one  doubts  that  in  cases  of  excommunication,  the  laws  of 
judicial  proceedings  should  be  observed  :  and  Suarez,  cited  by  him,  affirms, 
tbat  a  censure,  in  which  there  has  been  "  a  substantial  defect  in  the  lawful 
order''''  of  proceeding,  is  entirely  invalid.  And  what  gi-eater  defect  can 
tliere  l)c,  than  in  ?iot  examining  the  facts  of  the  case,  or  determining  them 
in  blind  obedience  to  a  power  erroneously  supposed  to  be  irresistible  ? 


SECT.  II.]  CONCLUSIONS.  81 

examples  of  this  in  ihc  case  of  Novatian,  and  the  Donatists. 
Novatian  and  his  adherents,  having  separated  from  the  com- 
munion of  the  church  of  the  Romans  about  a.d.  250,  and  es- 
tabhshed  a  rival  worship,  were  declared  to  be  separated  from 
the  church  by  a  council  of  sixty  bishops  at  Rome,  and  by  all 
the  bishops  in  Africa  and  other  western  provinces  ;"'  and  in  the 
East  by  the  bishops  assembled  at  Antioch  ;■*  and  this  judgment 
being  universally  received,  and  the  facts  of  the  case  being  un- 
deniable and  notorious,  the  Novatians  were  always  accounted 
schismatics,  cut  off  entirely  from  the  church  of  Christ.  In  the 
same  manner,  the  Donatists  having  separated  from  the  com- 
munion of  the  church  of  Carthage,  and  prevailed  on  the  bish- 
ops of  Numidia  to  support  their  schism  and  create  a  rival 
bishop  ;  and  a  division  having  arisen  throughout  Africa  on 
this  account,  their  cause  was  successively  heard  by  a  council  of 
Italian  and  Galilean  bishops  at  Rome ;  by  the  council  of  Aries 
convened  from  all  the  West ;  by  the  Emperor  Constantine  at 
Milan  ;  and  it  was  universally  condemned  after  a  full  exami- 
nation. The  Donatists  were  thenceforward  regarded  by  all 
Christians  as  separated  entirely  from  the  church  of  Christ,  as 
much  as  the  Marcionites,  Montanists,  Sabelhans,  Arians,  cr 
any  other  sect  which  denied  the  first  principles  of  the  Chris- 
tian religion.  And  they  on  their  part  declared  the  church 
apostate,  and  rejected  its  communion. 

CONCLUSIONS.  ■     ' 

1.  Unity  of  communion  being  the  law  of  God,  both  in  the 
universal  church,  and  in  all  the  particular  churches  in  which  it 
is  arranged  ;  it  is  impossible  that  in  the  same  place  there  can  he 
several  different  churches,  authorized  by  God  and  united  to 
Christ.  In  the  case  of  rival  communions  in  a  particular  locali- 
ty, it  is  possible  that  none  of  them  may  be  Christian  ;  but  one 
alone  can  be  the  church  of  Christ ;  and  it  is  as  impossible  that 

m  Euseb.  Hist.  Eccl.  lib.  vi.  c.  43. 

n  Ibid.  c.  46.    See  also  Fleury,  lib.  vii.  c.  5.' 

VOL.  I.  —  11 


82  CONCLUSIONS.  [p.  1.   CH.  IV. 

there  slioukl  be  two  particular  churches  in  the  same  place,  as 
two  universal  churches  in  the  world.  I  do  not  deny  that  per- 
sons may  be,  in  fact,  separated  from  the  communion  of  the 
church  in  a  particular  place,  who  are  not  truly  separated  from 
the  universal  church  :  this  may  arise  from  an  excommunica- 
tion founded  in  an  error  of  fact,  not  yet  made  manifest.  But 
what  I  contend  for  is,  that  in  one  locality  there  can  be  but  one 
society  whose  communion  Christians  are  bound  to  seek  in  pre- 
ference to  all  others.  The  supposition,  indeed,  that  Chris- 
tians in  each  locality  could  be  bound  to  entertain  fraternal  inter- 
course in  religion  with  several  communities  mutually  separated, 
would  carry  an  absurdity  and  contradiction  on  the  very  face  of 
it,  because  the  obligation  of  each  individual  to  communicate 
with  all,  would  render  it  impossible  that  there  should  be  differ- 
ent communions.  This  conclusion  is  maintained  by  Cyprian 
in  several  places  :  "  The  Lord  himself  admonishes  and  teaches 
us  in  his  Gospel,  saying  :  '  And  there  shall  be  one  flock  and 
one  shepherd.'  And  does  any  one  imagine,  that  there  can  be, 
in  one  place,  many  shepherds,  or  many  flocks?  The  apostle 
Paul, recommending  the  same  unity  to  us,  beseeches  and  ex- 
horts, saying  :  "I  beseech  you,  brethren,  by  ihe  name  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  that  ye  all  speak  the  same  thing,  and  that 
there  be  no  divisions  among  5^ou,  but  be  agreed  in  the  same 
mind  and  the  same  judgment.' "° 

2.  Since  God  has  commanded  unity  in  his  church,  and  since 
Christ  so  earnestly  desired  and  prayed  for  it,  it  follows  neces- 
sarily that  he  must  have  provided  means  for  sustaining  this 
vmity ;  and  that  any  society  which  does  not  possess  means  for 
upholding  unity  of  communion,  and  whose   fundamental  prin- 


•  y  "  Monet  ipse  (Christus)  in  evangelio  suo  et  docet,  dicens :  Et  erit 
uaus  grex  et  unus  pastor.  Et  esse  posse  uno  in  loco  aliquis  existimat  aut 
multos  pastores  aut  plures  greges  ?  Apostolus  item  Paulas  banc  eandem 
nobis  insinuaus  vniitatem,  obsecrat  et  bortatur  dicens :  Obsecro,  inquit,  vos 
ratres  per  nomen  Domini  nostri  Jesu  Cbristi,"  &c. — De  Unitatc,  p.  255. 
cd^  P;imelii, 


SECT,  n.]    COMMUNION  WITH  SEPARATISTS  UNLAWFUL.  83 

ciples  oblige  them  to  tolerate,  and  even   encourage  separation 
without  limit,  cannot  be  a  church  of  God. 

3.  Any  society  which  originally  separated  voluntarily  from 
the  communion  of  the  whole  church,  or  from  that  of  a  portion 
of  the  church,  on  principles  which  involved  equally  separation 
from  the  whole,  and  which  is  accordingly  separated  from  the 
communion  of  all  societies  descended  regularly  from  those 
which  existed  before  its  separation  :  such  a  society  can  form 
no  part  of  the  church  of  Christ.  .    - 

4.  Any  society  which  originally  separated  itself  voluntarily 
from  the  church  in  any  locality,  is  inexcusable,  even  though 
some  church  in  another  part  of  the  world  may  not  have  separat- 
ed it  from  its  communion,  through  ignorance  of  its  offence,  or 
under  the  influence  of  prejudice  and  mistake. 

5.  It  is  unlawful  for  members  of  the  church  to  hold  religious 
communion  with  those  who  have  separated  themselves  from  it. 
I  mean,  that  it  is  unlawful  to  unite  in  their  worship,  or  gene- 
rally to  perform  any  purely  religious  acts  with  them  ;  though 
it  is  commendable  in  those  brethren  who  are   especially  fitted 
for  that  office,  to  confer  with  the  separated,  in  order,  if  possi- 
ble,  to  convert  them  from  the  error  of  their  ways.     This  fol- 
lows from  the  admission,  that  separation  is  a  sin  of  the  deepest 
die  ;  for  acts  of  religion  performed  apart  from  the  church,  and 
in  rivalry  of  it,  are  precisely  those  things  which  constitute  some 
of  the   very  worst  parts    of  separation  itself.     It  is  in   these 
rival  religious  acts  alone,  that  the  schism  is  completed.    There 
is  nothing  more  requisite  to  show  the  unlawfulness  of  commu- 
nicating in  any  such  acts ;  because  the  rule  of  the  Scriptures 
forbids  Christians  absolutely  to  unite  in,  or  in  any  degree  coun- 
tenance what  is  in  itself  evil :    "  Come  out  from  among  them, 
and  be  ye  separate,  and  touch  not  the  unclean  thing  ;"  "  If  there 
come  any  unto  you,  and  bring  not  this  doctrine,  receive  him  not 
into  your  house,  neither  bid  him  God  speed  ;"  "  Ye  cannot  be 
partakers  of  the  cup  of  the  Lord  and  the  cup  of  devils."  These 
passages  prove  that  Christians  are,  as  the  apostle  says,  to  have 
"  no  felloAvship  with  the  works  of  darkness,"  among  which  ajl 


84  •  CONCLUSIONS.  [p.  I.  CH.  IV. 

acts  of  separate  worship  may  be  included,  for  they  are  per- 
formed beyond  the  kingdom  of  Christ.  It  was  in  accordance 
with  this  principle,  that  the  canons  of  the  universal  church  de- 
creed, that  it  was  unlawful  for  Christians  to  communicate  or 
pray  with  those  who  were  excommunicated,  or  who  deserted 
the  prayers  of  the  church,  and  met  in  private  houses  ;  that  no 
one  should  receive  gifts  from  heretics,  or  pray  in  their  cemete- 
ries, or  contract  marriages  with  them,  &c.p  By  heretics,  the 
general  council  of  Constantinople  understood,  "  those  who, 
while  they  pretend  to  confess  the  sound  faith,  have  separated 
and  held  meetings  in  opposition  to  our  canonical  bishops. "i 

6.  Unity  is  also  a  positive  sign  of  the  church  in  this  man- 
ner :  all  particular  churches,  or  parts  of  the  whole  church,  are 
free  from  the  guilt  of  separation,  and  the  penalty  of  excommu- 
nication. If,  therefore  it  can  be  shown,  that  any  society  of  pro- 
fessing Christians  was  originally  founded  by  the  apostles,  or 
the  churches  they  instituted  ;  that  this  society  has  been  always 
visible,  that  it  never  voluntarily  separated  itself  from  the  great 
body  of  the  church,  and,  in  fine,  that  it  was  never  excommuni- 
cated from  the  rest  of  the  church,  by  any  regular  or  valid  judg- 
ment ;  then  it  follows  that  such  a  society  must  be  a  portion  of 
the  church  of  Christ,  as  far  as  it  can  be  proved  such  from  the 
unity  of  communion.  In  this  case  it  can  never  have  ceased  to 
be  what  it  originally  was,  namely,  a  church  of  Christ ;  for  a 
church  can  only  cease  to  be  united  to  Christ  by  its  own  separa- 
tion, or  by  the  lawful  judgment  of  others. 

p  Apostol.  can.  ii.  1  ;  Concil.  Laodicen.  can.  32.  34  ;  Antioch.  2  ;  Lao- 
dicen.  9.  31.  See  also  Gangra,  c.  6  ;  Nicen.  5 ;  Antioch.  6 ;  African.  9. 
I  take  this  opportunity  of  saying,  that  Mr.  Percival's  book  on  "the  Roman 
schism"  contains  many  of  the  most  important  ancient  canons.  It  is  almost 
needless  to  mention  Dr.  Routh's  "  Reliquiae  Sacrae,"  Justel,  Bingham, 
Beveridge,  Johnson's  "  Vade  Mecum,"  Fleury's  "Institution  au  Droit 
Eccles.,"  and  Van  Espen,  as  the  best  authorities  on  the  sacred  canons. 

Toii;  Tm  Tria-Tiv  fAiv  Tiiv  vyili  TTfoa-TroicvfAivou;  o/uo\oy(h,   i-Troo-^ia-^ivrm  Se  kx) 
&fTi<rvvd-yovTtt;  toI;  icAvonKol;  i/AZv  ima-K'jTroi;. — Conc.  Const,  can.  vi. 


SECT.  III.]  ROMISH   DOCTRINE  OF  UNITY.  86 


SECTION  III. 

WHETHER    THE    EXTERNAL    COMMUNION    OF    THE    UNIVERSAL 
CHURCH    CAN    EVER    BE    INTERRUPTED. 

It  has  been  shown  that  Christ  enjoined  perfect  unity  in  his 
church,  and  therefore  that  whatever  society  of  Christians  shall 
either  separate  itself  from,  or  be  regularly  excommunicated 
by  the  great  body  of  Christians,  is  cut  off  from  the  church. 
This  was  the  case  with  the  Novatians,  Donatists,  Arians,  Pela- 
gians, Luciferians,  Nestorians,  Jacobites,  Monothelites,  &c. 

But  it  is  now  to  be  inquired,  whether  it  is  possible  that  the 
catholic  church  itself  can  be  at  any  time  divided  in  respect  of 
external  communion.  The  great  majority  of  Romish  theologi- 
ans absolutely  deny  the  possibility  of  any  such  case.  Their 
popular  argument  in  proof  that  their  community  constitutes  the 
catholic  church  of  Christ,  is  indeed  altogether  based  on  this 
principle.  They  contrast  the  external  characteristics  of  their 
own  community  with  those  of  all  others,  and  endeavour  to 
prove  that  it  possesses  superior  claims  to  those  of  any  other  so- 
ciety. This  is  the  beaten  course  pursued  by  all  their  writers, 
since  the  time  of  Bellarmine  at  least ;  and  it  is  entirely  based 
on  the  assumption,  that  the  catholic  church  can  never  exist,  ex- 
cept as  perfectly  one  in  external  communion. 

This  position,  always  assumed  by  their  writers,  and  some^ 
times  admitted  insensibly  by  their  opponents,  was  expressly 
maintained  by  Nicole,"^  (followed  by  Tournely,  and  all  subse- 
quent Romish  theologians,)  against  M.  Jurieu,  a  minister  of  the 
French  Protestants,  who  affirmed  that  the  universal  church 
consists  of  all  societies  agreeing  in  fundamental  doctrines,  even 
though  mutually  excommunicated  and  anathematized  ;  that  the 
only  true  unity  of  communion  consists  in  spiritual  union  with 
Christ,  and  therefore  that  the  formation  of  new  sects  is  in  no 
degree  blameable.^     Such  principles  were  indeed  absurd,  and 


■•  Unite  de  I'Eglise. 

*   Vrai  Systeme  de  VEghse,  and  Defence  of  the  same. 


86  ROMISH  DOCTRINE  OF  UNITY  EXAMINED.   [P.  I.  CH.  IV. 

totally  subversive  of  the  catholic  doctrine  of  unity  ;  and  Jurieu 
himself  confessed,  that  from  the  time  of  Cyprian  at  least,  all 
the  fathers  maintained  a  system  entirely  opposed  to  his.'^  But 
while  the  doctrine  of  Jurieu  merits  censure,  as  novel  and  erro- 
neous, it  appears  that  his  opponents  have  not  succeeded  in  their 
attempts  to  prove,  that  the  external  communion  of  the  whole 
catholic  church  can  never  be  interrupted. 

If  this  external  communion  must  always  exist  uninterrupt- 
edly, it  must  be  from  a  very  remarkable  exercise  of  divine 
power,  because  we  know  from  Scripture,  that  the  church  was 
to  comprise  evil  men  as  well  as  good  ;  and  no  one  pretends 
that  its  members  were  to  be  exempt  from  frailties,  passions, 
errors,  ignorance.  These  circumstances  would  be  very  liable, 
occasionally,  to  cause  divisions  in  the  church  ;  and  it  is  possible 
that  in  some  case  the  fault  and  the  justitication  might  be  so 
equally  divided  between  two  parties,  that  it  might  be  impossible 
to  affirm,  that  either  was  involved  in  the  guilt  of  formal  schism. 
There  is  therefore  no  impossibility  of  division  in  the  church 
itself,  if  we  regard  the  persons  of  whom  it  is  constituted  ;  and 
the  only  way  in  "which  this  impossibility  can  be  proved,  is  by 
evidence  of  some  divine  promise  to  that  effect. 

I  shall  discuss  this  subject  from  Scripture,  tradition,  history, 
and  the  principles  and  admissions  of  Romanists. 

First.  Scripture  contains  no  direct  plain  assertion,  either  that 
the  external  communion  of  the  church  will  always  be  perfectly 
one,  or  that  it  will  be  divided.  Romanists  allege  the  words  of 
our  Saviour  in  reference  to  the  (/entiles  :  "  Other  sheep  I  have, 
which  are  not  of  this  fold  ;  them  also  I  must  bring,  and  they 
shall  hear  my  voice,  and  there  shall  be  one  fold,  and  one  shep- 
herd.""^ This  promise  was  doubtless  fulfilled  by  the  admission 
of  the  Gentiles  to  the  same  privileges  as  the  believing  Jews  ; 
so  that  our  Saviour  meant,  that  they  should  be  one  in  spiritual 
privileges  ;  and  this  unity  might  well  subsist,  even  if  external 
communion   were    sometimes   interrupted  through  misunder- 

t  Unite  do  I'P^dise.  "  John  iii.  16. 


SECT.  III.]     ROMISH   UOCTlllNE   OF   UNITY    EXAMINED.  87 

Standings  or  infirmities.  They  also  adduce  those  words  of 
Christ :  "  A  kingdom  divided  against  itself  cannot  but  fall." 
This  passage  does  not  prove,  that  the  church  can  never  be  divid- 
ed in  point  of  external  communion,  because  our  Lord  was 
here  alluding  to  the  case  of  kingdoms  which  had  no  promise  of 
perpetuity,  and  did  not  refer  to  the  church,  which  has  such  a 
promise,  and  therefore  can  never  fall  even  by  her  divisions. 
But  supposing  that  we  applied  these  words  to  the  church,  still 
they  would  not  prove  what  our  opponents  desire,  because  our 
Lord  could  only  have  meant,  that  an  irreconcilable  division,  an 
intestine  and  destructive  loar,  would  lead  to  the  inevitable  over- 
throw of  any  kingdom  ;  but  he  did  not  mean  that  a  kingdom 
may  not  for  a  time  be  divided  b}^  jealousies  without  being 
destroyed.  '       ' 

If  the  essential  unity  of  the  church  is  to  be  inferred  from 
its  being  spoken  of  in  the  singular  numl>er,  as  the  "  kingdom," 
"  household,"  "  body,"  and  "  spouse"  of  Christ ;  it  is  proba- 
bly to  be  understood  of  a  spiritual  unity  of  relations  to  Christ, 
which  might  exist,  even  if  external  unity  were  interrupted. 
The  "  field,"  the  "  draw-net,"  and  "  the  threshing  floor," 
prefigure  the  church  as  one,  that  is,  as  the  common  and  only 
way  of  trial  and  salvation.  The  same  may  be  said  of  the 
types  of  the  terrestrial  paradise,  the  ark  of  Noah,  the  temple 
of  Jerusalem,  &c.,  what  are  said  to  prefigure  the  church's 
unity.  They  all  relate  to  salvation  in  the  church  only  ;  'but 
they  do  not  enable  us  to  determine  whether  that  church  was 
always*  to  be  perfectly  united  in  external  communion.  The 
argument  for  the  unity  of  the  church,  from  Christ's  "  coat 
without  seam,"  which  St.  Cyprian  and  others  have  regarded  as 
a  type  of  imity,  was  probably  so  used  by  them  rather  in  the 
way  of  theological  argument,  than  from  any  apostolical  tradi- 
tion ;  nor  docs  it  appear  safe  or  satisfactory  to  rest  on  an  inter- 
pretation so  symbolical,  in  a  question  of  so  much  importance, 
as  that  which  is  here  under  consideration.'' 


No  one  pretends  that  the  particular  arguments  of  theologians,  even  in 
the  earlier  ages,  are  always  to  be  received  vv-ithout  examination.     Even  the 


*     .-, 


88  ROMISH  DOCTRINE  OF  UNITY  EXAMINED.  [P.  I.  CH.  IV. 

If  it  be  supposed,  however,  that  the  images  and  types  above 
mentioned,  relate  to  the  unity  of  the  church  in  general ;  they 
may  only  be  representative  of  its  perfect  state,  according  to  the 
will  of  God,  or  its  glorified  state.  The  sacred  writers  speak  of 
the  church  consisting  of  imperfect  men,  when  viewed  in  this  re- 
spect, as  "  without  spot  and  without  blemish."  The  church  is  in 
this  sense  perfectly  one,  that  is,  according  to  the  divine  will,  and 
in  the  essential  respects  which  are  known  to  God  ;  but  we  can- 
not infer  that  it  will  never  at  any  time  in  this  world  be  blemished 
in  reality  by  serious  faults.  On  the  contrary,  Christ  himself 
intimates,  that  when  he  cometh,  he  will  find  but  little  true  faith 
in  the  earth. 

The  apostle  Paul  urges  the  duty  of  peace  and  order  in  the 
church,  because  we  being  many,  are  one  body  in  Christ,  and 
every  one  members  one  of  another"  (Rom.  xii.  5).  From  this 
expression,  "owe  hodif  our  opponents  argue,  that  the  church 
must  always  be  one  in  external  communion.  But  why  may 
not  the  church  constitute  "  one  body  in  Christ,''''  spiritually 
united  to  him  as  their  head,  animated  by  one  spirit  of  faith 
and  charity,  and  continuing  to  be  the  one  way  of  salvation, 
though  for  a  time,  through  mutual  misunderstandings,  there 
should  be  an  estrangement  between  some  portions  of  the 
church  ?  And  if  the  same  apostle  urges  Christians  to  "  keep 
the  unity  of  the  spirit  in  the  bond  of  peace,"  because  there  is 
"  one  body  and  one  spirit,  &c.  ;"™  does  he  also  affirm  it  impos- 
sible that  some  portions  of  this  "  one  spiritual  body"  should, 
through  misunderstandings,  be  estranged  for  a  time  from  exter- 

arguments  of  general  councils  themselves  are  not  binding,  as  the  Romanist 
Delahogue  argues  from  Vasquez^  and  Vernon,  the  latter  of  whom  says, 
"  Id  solum  esse  de  fide  quod  definitur  ;  seu  ut  loquuntur  juristje,  solum  dispo- 
sitivum  arresti,  seu  contenti  in  capite  aut  canone,  est  de  fide :  motivum 
vero  arresti,  seu  ejus  probatio,  non  sunt  de  fide  ?" — (Delahogue,  De  Eccl. 
cap.  V.  prop.  2.  Annot.  circa  decreta  Concil.)  If  this  is  the  case  even  in 
the  decrees  of  general  councils,  how  much  more  so  in  the  case  of  individual 
fathers  and  theologians  ?  [See  Part  iv.  Ch.  vi.] 
w  Eph.  iv.  4,  5. 


SECT.  III.]    ROMISH  DOCTRINE  OF  UNITY  EXAMINED.  89 

nal  intercourse  ?  Our  Lord  himself  prayed  for  all  believers  : 
"  that  they  may  all  be  07ie,  as  thou  Father  art  in  me,  and  I  in 
thee  ;  that  they  may  also  be  one  in  us  :  that  the  world  may  be- 
lieve that  thou  hast  sent  me."'^  We  may  justly  infer  from  this, 
that  perfect  unity  is  the  v^^iH  of  Christ,  and  that  he  has  provided 
means  for  preserving  or  recovering  this  unity  ;  but  we  cannot 
infer,  that  it  would  never  be  actually  impaired  in  the  church  at 
any  time. 

Our  Saviour's  earnest  and  repeated  prayer  for  the  unity  of 
his  disciples,  is  not  equivalent  to  a  promise  that  they  should 
never  be  divided.  We  may  rather  infer  from  the  earnestness 
of  that  prayer,  that  the  church  was  in  imminent  danger  of  dis- 
union, and  that  so  great  an  evil  would  most  probably  at  some 
time  arrive.  When  Christ  had  prayed  earnestly  that  the  cup 
might  pass  from  him,  did  it  actually  pass  away  ?  So  it. is  in 
this  case.  Perhaps  no  duty  is  more  frequently,  more  earnestly 
inculcated  in  the  New  Testament,  than  that  of  peffect  unity 
with  the  brethren.  It  was  the  new  and  special  commandment 
of  the  Saviour  himself,  and  when  the  first  symptoms  of  division 
manifested  themselves  in  the  Christian  family,  he  took  occasion 
to  eradicate  the  very  principle  from  which  they  came.  "  The 
princes  of  the  Gentiles  exercise  dominion  over  them,  and  they 
that  are  great  exercise  authority  upon  them.  But  it  shall  not 
be  so  among  you  :  but  whosoever  will  be  great  among  you,  let 
him  be  your  minister  ;  and  whosoever  will  be  chief  among  you, 
let  him  be  your  servant,"  6ccJ  Ambition  was,  as  our  Saviour 
knew,  the  source  of  divisions,  and  therefore  he  warned  his  dis- 
ciples  against  all  desire  of  earthly  dominion  and  aggrandise- 
ment, under  any  pretence  whatever.  Nor  did  he  mean  that  they 
should  merely  assume  the  title  of  servants,  while  they  endea- 
voured to  bring  all  the  world  beneath  their  domination. 

The  commandments,  the  prayers  of  Jesus  Christ  for  the 
unity  of  the  brethren,  and  the  corresponding  exhortation^  of  all 
the  apostles,  afford  no  promise,  however,  that  the  church  should 


'^  John  xvii.  21.  y  Matt.  xx.  25—27. 

VOL,  I, — 12 


90  ROMISH  DOCTRINE  OF  UNITY  EXAMINED,    [p.  I.  CII.  IV. 

never  be  divided  in  point  of  external  communion.  On  the 
contrary,  they  rather  afford  a  presumption  that  it  would  be  so 
at  some  time.  When  Moses,  before  his  departure,  delivered 
to  the  Israelites  those  awful  warnings  of  the  evils  which  would 
overtake  them,  if  they  declined  to  idolatry,  it  may  be  reason- 
ably inferred,  that  there  was  danger  and  probability  that  they 
would  actually  commit  that  sin.  So  when  Christ  and  the 
apostles,  before  their  departure,  with  equal  earnestness  press 
on  us  the  duty  of  perfect  unity,  we  may  infer  that  there  was 
danger  and  probability  of  division  in  the  church. 

There  is,  indeed,  as  I  have  said,  no  prophecy  of  the  division 
of  the  church  at  any  time  ;  but  neither  is  there  any  promise 
of  its  perpetual  and  perfect  external  union.  This  is  what  the 
Romanists  ought  to  produce  before  they  affirm  the  impossihility 
of  any  division  in  the  church,  or  the  certainty  that  the  catholic 
church  can  only  exist  in  some  one  communion. 

Secondly,  I  proceed  to  consider  the  doctrine  of  catholic 
tradition  ;  and  here  also,  as  we  might  have  anticipated,  the 
position  of  our  opponents  is  entirely  unsupported.  That  the 
fathers  and  councils  of  the  church  do  not  affirm,  that  the  church 
can  never  be  divided  in  point  of  external  communion,  we  may 
conclude  from  the  very  quotations  adduced  by  the  Roman 
theologians,  Nicole,  Tournely,  Bailly,  &c.  in  proof  of  their 
assumption  ;  for  they  are  silent  on  the  very  point  in  debate. 
It  is  in  vain  to  adduce  passages  from  the  fathers,  where  they 
speak  of  the  catholic  church  as  one  communion,  from  which 
all  heretics  and  schismatics  are  cut  off.  Who  disputes  that 
heretics  and  schismatics  arc  not  of  the  church,  and  that  the 
church  was  generally  one  communion  in  fact  ?  The  only 
question  is,  whether  it  could  ever  be  troubled  by  divisions. 
The  innumerable  exhortations  and  arguments  of  the  fathers  in 
favour  of  unity ;  their  denunciations  of  those  who  separated 
from  the  church,  or  whom  the  church  condemned ;  their  doc- 
trine of  the  impossibility  of  several  true  churches  co-existing 
together  in  the  same  place  :  these  are  entirely  received  and 
approved  by  us  ;  but  they  do  not  touch  the  question  in  debate, 


SECT.    III.]    ROMISH    DOCTRINE    OF    UNITY    EXAMINED.  91 

namely,  whether  the  catholic  church  itself  may  ever  be  divided 
in  point  of  external  communion.^ 

There  arc  but  two  writers,  of  all  those  adduced,  whose 
words  appear  to  bear  on  the  question.  St.  Cyprian,  in  speak- 
ing of  the  unity  of  the  church,  says  :  "  Unity  cannot  be  severed ; 
nor  the  one  body  by  laceration  be  divided"^  One  or  two  more 
similar  passages  occur  in  the  same  treatise.  We  know  that 
Cyprian,  in  these  places,  was  speaking  with  reference  to  the 
Novatians,  who  had  separated  themselves  from  the  communion 
of  the  particular  church  of  Rome,  and  established  a  rival  com- 
munity, and  who  were  condemned  by  the  universal  church. 
His  meaning  is,  that  the  unity  of  the  church  cannot  be  so 
divided  by  laceration,  that  in  one  place  there  shall  be  several 
true  churches,  as  he  observes  in  the  same  treatise  ;''  but  he  does 
not  touch  on  the  question  of  estrangement  between  the  churches 
of  different  parts  of  the  world.  St,  Augustine,  in  his  trea- 
tise against  Petilian  says,  with  reference  to  the  Donatists  : 
"  He  that  does  not  communicate  with  this  church  (universal) 
thus  diffused,  communicates  not  with  him  whose  words  have 
been  recited"  (Christ)."  He  means  those  who  rejected  the 
communion  of  the  catholic  church  and  pronounced  it  apostate, 
as  the  Donatists  did,  or  who  were  cut  off  by  the  regular  con- 
demnation of  the  whole  church  ;  but  not  simply  those  who  did 
not  communicate  with  the  whole  church.  Innocentius  of 
Rome,  with  whom  St.  Augustine  communicated,  was  himself 
not  in  communion  with  the  eastern  churches. 

^  ["  They  used  statements  which  were  not  reaUzed  to  their  minds,  except 
in  that  form  in  which  we  accept  them  as  fully  as  the  Romanists.  The 
point  virtually  in  debate  then  was,  whether  two  true  churches  could  be 
rivals  in  one  place  ;  but  the  question  whether  two  churches  in  two  places 
could  be  in  a  state  of  estrangement,  had  never  fairly  been  contemplated  at 
that  time,Jand  the  words  of  the  Fathers  are  but  words  and  not  ideas,  which 
seem  to  bear  upon  a  state  of  things  not  existing." — British  Critic,  Oct., 
1838,  p.  360.] 

»  De  Unitate,  near  the  end,  p.  260,  ed.  Pamel.     [P.  149,  Oxf.  tr.] 

b  Ibid.  p.  255.     [P.  136,  Oxf.  tr.] 

«  Contra  Literas  Petiliani,  lib.  2.  c.  55.  torn.  ix. 


92 


COMMUNION    or    CATHOLIC    CHURCH.     [P.    I.    CH.    IV. 


It  is  very  certain,  then,  that  the  fathers  esteemed  separation 
from  the  church  a  most  grievous  sin,  but  they  did  not  affirm 
that  the  church  itself  could  never  be  divided  for  a  time  by 
jealousies  and  misunderstandings.  ' 

Thirdly,  it  is  undeniable  from  history,  that  external  com- 
munion between  all  churches  has  at  various  times  been  inter- 
rupted. I  need  not  dwell  on  the  excommunication  of  the 
Asiatic  churches  by  Victor  and  the  Roman  church:  nor  on 
that  of  Cyprian  and  the  Africans  by  Stephen,  who,  v^hen  some 
African  bishops  came  to  Rome,  forbade  the  people  to  commu- 
nicate with  them,  or  even  to  receive  them  into  their  houses  ; 
nor  on  the  excommunication  of  Hilary  of  Aries  by  Leo.*^  In 
all  these  cases,  different  parts  of  one  and  the  same  catholic 
church  were  separated  from  external  communion.  But  we 
may  observe  instances  in  which  this  division  was  carried  to  a 
greater  extent,  and  involved  the  whole  church.  Fleury  (him- 
self of  the  Roman  communion)  says,  with  reference  to  the 
death  of  Chrysostom  :  "  His  death  did  not  terminate  the 
division  of  the  churches  of  the  East  and  West ;  and  while 
the  orientals  refused  to  re-establish  his  memory,  the  Roman 
church,  followed  hy  all  the  West,  held  firm  to  the  resolution 
she  had  taken  not  to  communicate  with  the  oriental  bishops, 
especially  with  Theophilus  of  Alexandria,  until  an  oecumenical 
council  should  be  held  to  remedy  the  evils  of  the  church."*^ 
This  division  continued  for  several  years. 

The  division  between  the  East  and  West  was  again  renewed 
in  the  time  of  Acacius,  patriarch  of  Constantinople,  whom 
Felix  of  Rome  deposed  and  excommunicated  for  having  held 
communion  with  heretics  and  for  other  causes,  and  to  whose 
communion  all  the  eastern  bishops  adhered.*'  We  learn  from 
the  letters  of  the  orthodox  oriental  bishops,  that  after  this  time 
they  were   not  actually  in  communion  with  the  West.^     The 


d  Fleury,  Hist.  Eccl.  1.  xxviL  s.  5. 
e  Hist.  Eccl.  1.  xxii.  13. 
f  Ibid.  1.  xxxi.  16. 


SECT.    III.]  _  INTERRUPTED,  93 

Roman  bishops  informed  ihem  of  the  mode  in  which  they 
might  recover  their  commmiion,^  and  in  fine,  when  the  re-union 
had  been  accomplished  between  the  churches  of  Rome  and 
Constantinople,  after  an  interval  of  thirty-five  years,  Pope 
Hormisdas  writes  to  the  bishops  of  Spain,  to  inform  them  "  on 
what  conditions  they  should  admit  the  orientals  to  their  comviu- 
nionr^^  This  shows  that  the  Eastern  and  Western  churches 
had  again  been  altogether  separated  in  point  of  external  com- 
munion. 

I  shall  not  multiply  instances  of  division,  but  it  is  impossible 
not  to  mention  the  great  schism  in  the  Western  church,  which 
continued  from  1879  to  1414.  During  this  interval  the  whole 
of  that  church  was  divided  into  two,  and  at  last  three,  "  obe- 
diences," subject  to  so  many  rival  popes,  and  in  a  great  degree 
estranged  from  mutual  communion.  Each  "  obedience " 
adhered  to  its  head  as  the  true  vicar  of  Christ,  and  treated 
those  of  the  other  obedience  as  schismatics.  I  do  not  say 
that  this  separation  of  communion  was  universal,  but  it  existed 
to  a  great  extent  both  between  different  national  churches  and 
in  particular  churches,  as  we  may  see  in  the  ecclesiastical 
history  of  that  time. 

The  best  reply  made  to  such  facts  by  Roman  theologians  is, 
that  although  in  these  cases,  some  portions  of  the  church  were 
separated  from  mutual  communion,  they  still  communicated 
with  some  third  party  ;  some  portion  of  the  church  which  did 
not  engage  in  the  schism.  Such  a  tliird  party  does  not  appear 
in  the  schism  between  the  Eastern  and  Western  churches 
in  the  time  of  Theophilus  of  Alexandria,  and  Acacius,  as 
Nicole  himself  admitted  ;  but  at  all  events,  the  communion  of 
two  parties  with  a  third,  does  not  in  any  degree  prove,  thai 
the  external  unity  of  the  church  universal  is  uninterrupted.  It 
IS  manifest,  that  this  sort  of  communion  only  preserves  at  most 
an  internal  unity  between  separated  portions  of  the  church  : 

s  Fleury,  1.  xxxi.  s.  16.     See  also  s.  26. 
•^  Ibid.  s.  43. 


94  COMMUNION  MAY  BE  INTERRUPTED.      [P.  I.   CH.  IV. 

the  external  union  is  evidently  interrupted.  Romanists  are 
sensible  that  they  cannot  sustain  the  perpetual  external  unity 
of  the  church  on  so  imperfect  a  communion ;  and  therefore 
they  endeavour  to  make  up  the  deficiency  by  referring  to  the 
motives,  sentiments,  and  conduct  of  those  who  have  been 
actually  separated  from  external  communion.  For  example, 
the  oriental  bishops  who  adhered  to  Acacius,  are  said  not  to 
have  been  schismatics,  because  "  they  thought  the  bishop  of 
Constantinople  could  not  be  condemned  except  in  a  general 
council,  but  they  did  not  deny  the  primacy  of  the  Roman  pon- 
tiff, nor  the  authority  of  the  universal  church."  "  They  sought 
communion  with  the  apostolical  see."  In  the  Western  schism, 
"  all  with  good  faith  adhered  to  him  whom  they  held  to  be  the 
legitimate  pontiff."  "  All  with  due  reverence  expected  the 
judgment  of  the  universal  church."  "  There  were  probable 
reasons  on  both  sides."  "  If  there  were  any  error  it  was  in 
mere  fact,  not  in  the  doctrine  itself,"'  &;c.  Now  if  different 
parties,  though  actually  separated  from  external  communion, 
may  yet  all  form  parts  of  the  one  catholic  church,  and  be  free 
from  schism,  in  consequence  of  their  motives  and  principles, 
and  their  communion  with  some  third  party  ;  might  not  the 
same  principles  and  motives,  and  communion  with  the  universal 
church  before  their  division,  be  equally  consistent  with  the 
unity  of  the  church  ?  I  see  not  why  this  communion  sliould 
not  preserve  the  unity  of  the  church  just  as  well  as  communion 
with  some  third  part  of  the  existing  church,  which  may  perhaps 
be  exceedingly  small,  for  no  Romanist  has  pretended  to  deter- 
mine the  dimensions  necessary  to  this  parly.  Suppose  then 
that  it  should  consist  of  a  few  insignificant  particular  churches, 
how  would  the  visible  unity  of  the  church  be  preserved  in  such 
a  case  ? 

Fourthly.      I  ask  whether  the   church  universal  may  not, 

!  Tournely,  Praelect.  Theol.  de  Ecclesia,  quaest.  iv.  art.  iv.  objectiones. 
Delahogue,  de  Eccl.  cap.  i.  pars  ii.  propos.  ii.  objectiones.  Bailly,  Tract, 
de  Eccl.  torn.  i.  c.  vi.  object. 


SECT.  III.]         COMMUNION    MAY    EE    INTERRUPTED.  95 

consistently  with  the  principles  of  Romanists  themselves,  be 
divided  into  two  parts  which  hold  no  direct  external  communion  ? 
It  is  their  doctrine,  that  the  external  unity  of  the  church  con- 
sists not  only  in  the  communion  of  all  its  members  with  each 
other,  but  with  their  visible  head,  the  Roman  pontiff.  Now 
Delahogue  and  others  admit,  that  their  communion  with  the 
head  may  be  interrupted  ■,^  therefore  a  pari  it  may  be  inter- 
rupted between  the  members  also.  The  one  species  of  external 
unity,  in  their  opinion,  is  as  divinely  instituted  as  the  other.  If 
they  contend  that  external  communion  cannot  in  both  its  branch- 
es be  interrupted  at  the  same  time,  yet  still  if  it  may  be  deduced 
from  their  principles,  that  a  time  may  come,  when  the  Roman 
pontiff  shall  be  the  only  hnk  of  external  communion  between 
two  parties  in  the  church ;  it  seems  that  external  visible  unity 
is  not  more  secure  on  their  principles  than  on  ours. 

It  is  the  doctrine  of  Delahogue  and  Roman  theologians,  that 
schis??i  consists  in  a  "  separation  from  the  communion  of  the 
universal  church,  which  happens  either  when  the  church 
excludes  any  one  from  its  body,  or  when  any  one  leaves  its 
communion."!  How  can  they  prove  that  no  case  can  occur, 
in  which  a  party  neither  separates  itself  from  the  communion 
of  the  universal  church,  nor  is  cut  off  from  communion  by  the 
universal  church,  and  yet  is  not  actually  in  external  communion 
with  the  majority  of  the  church  ?  If  we  suppose  the  church 
equally  divided  in  some  question,  and  each  portion  simply  to 
withdraw  its  communion  from  the  other  without  anathema,  in 
obedience  to  an  authority  erroneously  supposed  to  be  irresisti- 
ble, or  from   mutual  misunderstandings  ;  in  such  a  case  both 


Caeterum  notandum  est,  centrum  unitatis,  licet  ecclesis  necessarium, 
interrumpi  posse,  sub  quo  respectu  ejus  ope  eodem  visibili  communionis  vin- 
culo connectuntur  omnes  catholic! ;  namque  per  quadragmta  annos  niagni 
schismatis  occidentis,  varii  competitores  in  pontiiicatu  suas  habebant  obedi- 
entias,  et  singuli  eas  quas  iUis  non  adha;rebant  excommunicatione  feriebant. 
Quomodo  autem  nuUa  ex  iUis  fuerit  schismatica  probavimus,"  &c.-De 
Ecclesia,  c.  viii.  q.  3.  prop.  2.  p.  393. 

'  Delahogue,  c.  i.  p.  1.  propos.  2.  object.     Tournely,  ut  supra. 


96  COMMUNION    MAY    BE    INTERRUPTED,    [p.    I.    CH.    IV, 

sides  would  be  free  from  schism  according  to  this  definition, 
and  therefore  both  would  remain  portions  of  the  one  catholic 
church,  though  separated  from  mutual  external  communion. 

Tournely  ""  and  other  Roman  theologians  distinguish  three 
species  of  excommunication,  one  "  by  which  bishops  are  de- 
prived of  the  charity  and  ecclesiastical  communion  of  other 
bishops  ;"  which  consisted  chiefly  in  mutual  visits,  celebration 
of  offices  together,  exchange  of  letters,  and  sitting  together  in 
councils.  Another  "  by  which  a  person  was  totally  cut  off 
from  the  body  of  the  church  and  held  as  a  heathen  man  and  a 
publican."  And  another,  "  most  customary  among  the  ancients," 
which  "  consisted  in  bare  subtraction  or  denial  of  communion, 
by  which  bishops  or  churches  separated  themselves  from  mutual 
communion,  and  thus  one,  as  it  loere,  excommunicated  the 
other,  though  not  subject  to  it."  This  excommunication, 
according  to  Tournely,  "was  not  excommunication propcr/y 50 
called,^''  though  it  separated  churches  from  mutual  intercourse. 
Therefore  if  the  church  universal  should  be  divided  into  two 
portions  by  such  an  excommunication,  neither  party  would  be 
truly  cut  off  from  the  church,  and  therefore  the  church  would 
exist  in  different  communions. 

Nicole  himself,  in  arguing  for  the  unity  of  the  church  in 
external  communion,  makes  the  following  admission.  "  We 
do  not  pretend  that  the  actual  unity  which  consists  in  the 
effective  union  of  all  the  church  is  essential  to  the  church, 
because  this  union  may  be  troubled  by  divisions  and  contests 
which  God  permits."  He  even  lays  down  two  conditions 
which  exempt  from  schism  the  parties  so  divided.  The  first 
is,  that,  "  all  those  who  are  divided  in  good  faith  by  some  con- 
troversy which  is  not  ruled  or  decided,  tend  sincerely  to  unitij;'''' 
and  the  second,  that  they  must  "  acknowledge  a  common 
judge,  to  which  they  refer  their  differences,  which  is  a  gene- 
ral council."'^     Therefore,  according  to  the  principle  here  laid  ' 

"1  De  Ecclesia,  Ihid. 

"  Cited  by  Jurieu,  Unite  de  I'Eglise,  p.  360,  361. 


SECT.    III.]  OBJECTIONS.  9? 

down  by  Nicole,  whose  book  has  been  copied  by  all  succeeding 
Romish  theologians,  and  is  styled  by  the  bishop  of  Mans 
*'  exquisitum  opus  ;"  there  may  be  external  divisions  of  such  a 
kind,  that  ecclesiastical  unity  is  not  truly  subverted  by  them. 

It  may  be  concluded  then,  that  Scripture,  tradition,  history, 
and  theological  reasons,  are  so  far  from  proving  the  impossi- 
bility of  any  division  of  external  communion  in  the  catholic 
church,  that  they  rather  combine  to  establish  its  possibility, 
and  I  do  not  seek  more  than  this.  All  we  desire  is,  that  other 
churches  of  apostolical  form  and  succession,  or  who  at  least, 
claim  a  regular  succession  from  the  apostles,  shall  not  be  con- 
demned unheard  by  those  of  the  Roman  communion  ;  but  that 
the  question  of  actual  schism,  separation  from,  or  by  the  catho- 
lic church  shall  be  fairly  examined. 

OBJECTIONS. 

I-  If  it  be  unlawful  under  any  circumstances  to  separate 
from  a  church  of  Christ,  the  Reformation  must  have  been 
unlawful. 

Answer.  The  Reformation  was  not  a  voluntary  separation 
from  the  church  of  Christ,  as  I  shall  prove  hereafter  :  if  there 
was  such  a  separation  in  any  case  it  is  not  to  be  defended. 
Besides,  those  who  consider  the  church  of  Christ  altogether  to 
have  failed  in  the  West  before  the  Reformation,  cannot,  con- 
sistently with  their  own  principle,  maintain  that  there  was  any 
separation  from  the  church  then. 

II,  It  is  intolerant  to  maintain  that  separation  from  any 
church  is  a  sin. 

Answer.  It  cannot  be  intolerant  in  any  evil  sense,  if  it  be 
the  doctrine  of  Scripture  and  of  Christians  generally,  as  I  have 
proved  it  to  be.  Christ  has  a  perfect  right  to  bestow  his  favour 
in  the  church  only  if  he  pleases  it.  Salvation  is  the  free  gift 
of  God,  and  is  not  due  to  man. 

III.  We  are   commanded  in  Scripture  to    "  come   out   of 
VOL,  I, — 13 


98  OBJECTIONS.  [p.    I.    CH.    IV. 

Babylon.""  '  "  Depart  ye,  go  ye  out  from  thence,  touch  no 
unclean  thing ;  go  ye  out  of  the  midst  of  her."p  "  I  have 
written  to  you  not  to  keep  company  if  any  man  that  is  called 
a  brother  be  a  fornificator,  or  covetous,"i  &c. 

Answer.  The  former  texts  refer  to  some  community  which 
is  not  the  church  of  Christ,  but  has  either  apostatized  from  him, 
or  never  owned  him.  The  latter  only  enjoins  us  to  avoid  the 
society  and  procure  the  excision  of  scandalous  offenders,  which 
we  may  well  do  without  forsaking  the  communion  of  the 
church. 

IV.  The  presence  of  God  is  promised  to  all  Christian  meet- 
ings :  "  Where  two  or  three  are  gathered  together  in  my  name, 
there  am  I  in  the  midst  of  them  "  (Matt,  xviii.  20).  The  martyr 
Cyprian  replies  :  "  How  can  two  or  three  be  gathered  togeth- 
er in  the  name  of  Christ,  who  have  plainly  separated  from 
Christ  and  from  his  Gospel  ?  For  we  have  not  departed  from 
them,  but  they  from  us  ;  and  since  schisms  and  heresies  are 
bom  afterwards,  they  left  the  fountain-head  and  origin  of  truth, 
when  they  constituted  different  conventicles  for  themselves.""^  ' 


°  Rev.  xviii.  4.  p  Is.  Hi.  11.  "^  1  Cor.  v.  11. 

'  Be  Unit.  256. 


CHAPTER  V. 

ON  THE  UNITY  OF  THE  CHURCH  IN  RESPECT  OF  FAITH. 

That  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  did,  in  the  time  of  his  sojourn  on 
earth,  and  afterwards  by  his  apostles,  make  a  revelation  of 
truths  salutary  and  necessary  to  be  believed,  is  the  general 
confession  of  all  who  call  themselves  Christians.  Such  truths 
ought  doubtless  to  be  believed  by  all  his  disciples,  that  is,  by 
the  church  ;  and  therefore  the  church  ought  to  have  unity  of 
faith  ;  but  many  questions  have  been  raised  as  to  the  invariable 
unity  of  the  church  in  faith,  and  the  possibility  of  salvation 
under  certain  circumstances,  even  when  revealed  truth  is  not 
perfectly  received.     In  treating  of  this  subject  I  shall  prove. 

First,  that  the  truth  revealed  by  Christ  must  be  believed 
by  all  Christians  in  order  to  salvation. 

Secondly,  that  heresy,  or  the  pertinacious  denial  or  perver- 
sion of  the  truth,  excludes  from  salvation. 

Thirdly,  that  all  errors,  even  in  matters  of  faith,  are  not 
heretical. 

Fourthly,  I  shall  examine  the  question  of  unity  in  faith,  as 
an  attribute  and  sign  of  the  church  of  Christ ;  and. 

Fifthly,  deduce  some  conclusions  which  may  aid  us  in  dis- 
criminating the  church  of  Christ  from  all  rival  communities. 


SECTION   I. 

the    truth    revealed  by  CHRIST  IS  TO  BE  BELIEVED  BY  jVLL 

CHRISTIANS. 

The  whole  system  and  body  of  the  Christian  religion  is  ne- 
cessarily free  from  the  least  mixture  of  error  or  falsehood,  be- 
cause it  proceeds  from  the  infinitely  wise  and  only-begotten 


100  NECESSITY  OF  BELIEVING    THE  TRUTH.    [P.  I.  CH.  V. 

Son  of  God,   who  declared  himself  to  be  emphatically  "  the 
way,  the  truth,  and  the  life."     The  very  object  of  his  mission 
was  to  declare  the  truth.     "  To  this  end  was  I  born,   and  for 
this  cause  came  I  into  the  world,  that  I  should  bear  witness 
unto  the  truth"  (John  xviii.  37) ;  and  the  reason  was  :  "  God 
hath  from  the  bepjinning  chosen  you  to  salvation,  through  sanc- 
tification  of  the  Spirit  and  belief  of  the  truth  "    (2  Thess.  ii. 
13).     His  promise  to  his  disciples  was  ;  "Ye  shall  know  the 
truth,  and  the  truth  shall  make  you  free"  (John  viii.  32) :  and 
again,  "The  Spirit  of  truth  will  guide  you  into  all  truth"  (xvi. 
13).     It  is  to  be  observed,  that  salvation,  and  freedom  from  the 
dominion  of  evil,    are    hexe  connected  with  the  belief  of  the 
truth  :  the  holy  Spirit  even  is  given  for  its  maintenance  :  and 
hence  Christians  are  bound  by  their  hopes  of  salvation,  and  by 
the  obligation  of  submitting  their  own  wills  to  the  will  of  God, 
to  believe  the  truth  alone,  as  revealed  by  Jesus  Christ.     This 
truth  he  commanded  his  disciples  to  "  teach  all  nations  ;"  and 
since   truth  is   but  one,  the  apostle  declares  that  there  is  but 
"one  faith"  (Eph.  iv.  5),  for  which  "faith  once  delivered  to 
the  saints,"  a  faith   incapable  of  improvement,  of  addition,  or 
correction,  all  Christians   are   commanded  "  earnestly  to  con- 
tend" (Jude  3).     In  this  faith  they  are  to  remain   "  stablished 
as  they  have  been  taught "  (Coloss.  ii.  7).     They  are  exhorted 
to  "  stand  fast,  and  hold  the  traditions  they  have  been  taught" 
(1  Thess.  ii.   15) ;  "  not  carried  about  with  divers  and  strange 
doctrines"  (Heb.  xiii.  9)  ;  nor  "  like  children  tossed  to  and  fro 
and  carried  about  with  every  wind  of  doctrine"  (Eph.  iv.  14). 
Their  pastors  are  commanded,  when  needful,  to  "  rebuke  them 
sharply  that  they  may  be  sound  in  the  faith"  (Tit.  i.  13).    No- 
ihino;   is   more  evident  than  the  will    and    commandment  of 
Christ,  that  his  whole  church  should  firmly  believe  and  sustain 
the  one  truth  which  he   came  to  reveal  by  himself  and  by  his 
apostles.     Even  in  his  last  hours  he  thus  addressed  the  Father  : 
"  Sanctify  them  through  thy  truth  :  thy  word  is  truth  "  (John 
xvii.  17);  and  their  common  belief  in  this  truth  was  doubtless 
included  in  the  petition  which  he   immediately  added  :  "  that 


SECT.  II.]  HERESY.  101 

they  may  all  be  one."  In  fine,  St.  Paul  describes  the  Chris- 
tian church  as  established  for  the  maintenance  of  the  truth. 
"  The  church  of  the  living  God,  the  pillar  and  ground  of  the 
truth." 

Hence  we  may  conclude  that  there  is  an  obligation  on  all 
Christians  to  receive  the  whole  truth  revealed  by  Christ,  and 
to  deny  no  part  of  it.^  Every  portion  of  this  truth  comes 
from  God  himself,  and  rests  on  his  authority  ;  and  we  cannot 
without  temerity  divide  the  doctrines  which  He  has  revealed, 
into  those  which  may  be  denied,  and  those  which  may  be  be- 
lieved. Independently  of  the  rashness  and  folly  of  such  a  dis- 
tinction made  without  any  authority  of  revelation,  its  impiety 
is  manifest,  as  it  in  effect  constitutes  man  the  judge  of  God 
himself.  It  is  necessary  therefore  to  avoid  with  the  greatest 
care  any  approximation  to  this  evil  doctrine.  The  obligation  of 
believing  all  that  Christ  has  actually  revealed,  must  however 
be  admitted  by  professing  Christians  of  "  all  denominations." 
Even  the  Unitarian  cannot  allow  that  it  is  lawful  to  deny  that 
pardon  is  given  on  condition  of  repentance,  or  that  future  re- 
wards are  eternal ;  or  if  he  does  so,  he  must  be  prepared  to 
maintain  the  absurd  paradox,  that  one  who  denies  every  doctrine 
which  Christ  taught,  may  yet  be  a  disciple  of  Christ,  and  in 
the  way  of  salvation  which  Christ  came  to  point  out.  But  I 
proceed  to  confirm  what  has  been  asserted  in  this  section,  by 
shewing  the  sin  of  disbelieving  any  of  the  truth  revealed  by 
Christ. 

SECTION  II. 

HERESY  EXCLUDES  FROM  SALVATION.  ^ 

Heresy  is  the  'pertinacious  denial  of  some  truth  certainly 
revealed.  I  say  "  pertinacious,"  because  it  is  agreed  gene- 
rally that  pertinacity  or  obstinacy  is  required  to  constitute  formal 

*  See  Rogers's  Discourse  of  the  Church,  chap.  iii.  Hook,  Sermon  II. 
before  the  University  of  Oxford. 


102  HERESY  A  SIN.  [P.  I.  CH.  V. 

heresy.  Field  defines  heretics  as  "  they  that  obstinately  per- 
sist in  error  contrary  to  the  church's  faith.'""  Hooker  says  that 
"  heresy  is  herelically  maintained  by  such  as  obstinately  hold  it 
after  wholesome  admonition."*'  On  the  other  hand,  Melchior 
Canus  teaches  that  "  heresy  is  the  pertinacious  error  of  one 
who  professes  the  faith,  manifestly  contrary  to  that  truth  which 
is  certainly  catholic,"  and  that  "  he  alone  is  to  be  accounted  a 
heretic  who  resists  the  doctrine  of  the  church,  and  is  therefore 
pertinacious."'^  I  add  "  certainly  revealed,"  because  if  there 
be  a  legitimate  doubt  in  a  controversy,  which  of  the  two  con- 
trary doctrines  was  actually  revealed,  either  may  be  held  with- 
out heresy.  It  is  obvious,  also,  that  mere  ignorance,  or  a  tem- 
porary error  in  ignorance,  is  altogether  dilTerent  from  heresy. 

1.  Heresy  is  in  fact  a  species  of  infidelity  ;  it  denies  a  por- 
tion of  what  God  has  revealed  ;  and  the  words  of  Christ  to 
his  apostles,  "  Go  ye  and  teach  all  nations  ...  to  observe  all 
things  that  I  have  commanded  you  ...  he  that  believeth  not 
shall  be  damned,"  consigning  to  destruction  those  who  do  not 
believe  the  apostolic  preaching,  prove  the  infinite  danger  of  dis- 
puting or  denying  it  in  any  point.  As  it  has  been  shown  above 
that  the  Scriptures  connect  salvation  with  a  belief  of  the  truth, 
so  also  is  condemnation  united  with  the  belief  of  false  doctrines  : 
"  For  this  cause  shall  God  send  them  strong  delusion  that  they 
should  believe  a  lie  ;  that  they  all  might  be  damned  who  believe 
not  the  truth."  Heresy  is  here  represented  as  a  judgment  of 
God  on  the  wicked,  by  which  he  permits  Satan  to  gain  do- 
minion over  them,  and  precipitate  them  into  destruction.  St. 
Paul,  in  writing  to  the  Galatians,  with  reference  to  the  Judaiz- 
ing  teachers  who  maintained  the  necessity  of  obedience  to 
the  old  Law  without   denying  the  mission  of    Christ,  says  : 


b  Field,  Of  the  Church,  book  i.  ch.  14. 

c  Hooker's  Works  by  Keble,  vol.  iii.  p.  620. 

^  Melchior  Canus,  De  Locis  Theologicis,  lib.  xii.  c.  vii.  resp.  ad  5.  The 
same  doctrine  is  maintained  by  Bossuet,  Defens.  declar.  cler.  Gallicani, 
torn.  iii.  p.  286. 


'» 


SECT.  II.]  *  HERESY  A  SIN.  103 

"  There  be  some  that  trouble  you,  and  would  pervert  "  (not 
demj)  "  the  Gospel  of  Christ.  But  though  we  or  an  angel 
from  heaven  preach  any  other  gospel  {i.  e.  by  perverting  the 
Gospel)  unto  you,  than  that  which  we  have  preached  unto  you, 
let  him  be  anathema.  As  we  said  before,  so  say  I  now  again, 
If  any  man  preach  any  other  Gospel  unto  you  than  that  ye  have 
received,  let  him  be  anathema  "  (Gal.  i.  7 — 9). 

St.  Peter  said  :  "  There  shall  be  false  teachers  among  you, 
who  shall  privily  bring  in  damnable  heresies,  even  denying  the 
Lord  that  bought  them  "  (2  Pet.  ii.  1).  These  words  probably 
refer  directly  and  immediately  to  those  who  are  described  by 
another  apostle  as  "  deceivers"  and  "  antichrists"  who  "  confess 
not  that  Jesus  Christ  is  come  in  the  flesh"  (2  John  7).  St.  John 
continues :  "  Whosoever  transgresseth  and  abideth  not  in  the  doc- 
trine of  Christ,  hath  not  God  :  he  that  abideth  in  the  doctrine  of 
Christ,  he  hath  both  the  Father  and  the  Son.  If  there  come  any 
unto  you,  and  bring  not  this  doctrine,  receive  him  not  into  your 
house  ;  neither  bid  him  God  speed  :  for  he  that  biddeth  him 
God  speed,  is  partaker  of  his  evil  deeds  "  (9—11).  It  appears 
that  St.  John  alluded  in  this  passage  to  the  Gnostics,  who  de- 
nied that  Christ's  body  was  real,  and  consequently  subverted 
the  doctrine  of  his  real  incarnation,  passion,  death,  atonement, 
&c. ;  and  no  words  can  more  plainly  show  the  guilt  of  separat- 
ing from  the  unity  of  the  true  faith.  Evil  doctrine  is  else- 
where described  as  hateful  to  God  :  "  So  hast  thou  also  them 
that  hold  the  doctrine  of  the  Nicolaitanes,  which  thing  I  hate  " 
(Rev.  ii.  15).  Those  who  teach  and  maintain  false  doctrines 
are,  according  to  the  apostolical  command,  to  be  rejected  and 
cut  off  from  the  society  of  Christians.  "  If  any  man  teach 
otherwise,  and  consent  not  to  wholesome  words,  even  the  words- 
of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  to  the  doctrine  which  is  according 
to  godliness  ;  he  is  proud,  knowing  nothing,  but  doting  about 
questions  and  strifes  of  words,  whereof  cometh  envy,  strife, 
railings,  evil  surmisings,  perverse  disputings  of  men  of  corrupt 
minds  and  destitute  of  the  truth,  supposing  that  gain  is  godli- 
ness :  from  such  withdraw  thyself''  (l  Tim.  vi.  3 — 5).     "  A 


104  HERESY  CONDEMNED  BY  THE      [p.  I.  CH.  V. 

man  that  is  a  heretic,    after  the  first  and  second  admonition, 
reject''  (Tit.  iii.  10). 

These  passages  are  so  clear,  that  it  is  needless  to  adduce 
further  proof  from  Scripture  to  the  same  effect.  It  may  be 
concluded,  therefore,  that  a  pertinacious  denial  of  any  truth 
ceriainly  revealed  by  Christ  our  Lord,  whether  it  be  doctrinal 
or  moral,  relating  to  the  nature  and  attributes  of  God,  or  the 
duty  and  hopes  of  man,  is  offensive  to  God,  and  destructive  of 
salvation. 

2.  The  whole  church  of  Christ,  from  the  beginning, 
acknowledged  this  principle.  Ignatius  writes  thus  to  the 
church  in  Ephesus  :  "  Do  not  err,  my  brethren.  They  who 
corrupt  the  house,  shall  not  inherit  the  kingdom  of  God  ;  and 
if  such  as  do  these  things  according  to  the  flesh  have  perished, 
how  much  more  if  any  one  should  corrupt  the  faith  of  God  by 
evil  doctrine,  for  which  faith  Jesus  Christ  was  crucified  ?  Such 
a  one,  being  defiled,  shall  depart  into  fire  unquenchable.  Like- 
wise he  who  heareth  him."''  To  the  Trallians  he  writes  : 
"  Therefore  I  exhort  you,  and  yet  not  I,  but  the  love  of  Jesus 
Christ,  to  use  only  Christian  food,  and  to  abstain  from  strange 
pasture,  which  is  heresy.  For  the  heretics,  to  appear  worthy 
of  belief,  involve  Jesus  Christ  in  their  doctrine,  like  those  who 
administer  a  deadly  potion  mingled  with  sweet  wine,  which  the 
ignorant  receiveth  with  pleasure  ;  and  therein  is  death." ^  Jus- 
tin Martyr  teaches  the  same  doctrine.  Having  cited  the  words 
of  Christ :  "  Many  false  Christs  and  false  apostles  shall  arise 
and  deceive  many  of  the  faithful ;"  he  continues  :  "  There  are 
therefore,  and  were,  many,  who  going  forth  in  the  name  of 
Christ,  taught  impious  and  blasphemous  doctrines  and  practices ; 


e  M«  irAava3"Ss,  dJ'iX^foi  (aw.  0\  olnofSipoi  0u.<7-tKiia.v  Qiov  oh  Khrpovofxiia-oua-tv.  Ej 
oiv  01  xxra  <raf)i.t  Tctvra.  TrpdiTTOVTl;  o.7ri(jxvov,  Trovcti  /uaXKoy  iav  Trio'Tlv  Qiov  HAxy)  tT/tTasr- 
KUkia,  (fQiip^  CTrip  n; 'iitiTov;  XfHTTOi  iyrst.vpJjS>i  ;  o  toioutoc,  puTcpc;  ■yir/f/.ivo;,  si;  to 
Tvp'raaa-^iiT'TOV  r^a'priiTif  l/Aoice;  (fi  aKOuaiv  ctuTOV. — Ignat.  Epist.  ad  Ephes.  C.  Xvi. 

f  TlstpxKXKZ  ouv  t/|Maf,  oIk  tj/w,  SlKa'  «  ayaTu  'l^jtrou  XplTTCv,  /uovit  T«  XpicrrMy» 
Tpa<pi{  ;^p«{rfl*/,    i.}.hvTfw  i'i  /SoTaV«c  &7ri^iT^xi,    iV/c  i^^^v  ai'ifurt;,  si.   t.   \. — Ad 

Trail,  c.  vi. 


SECT.  11.]  '•  PRIMITIVE  CHURCH.  '  l65 

and  we  call  them  by  the  name  of  those  men  from  whom  each 
doctrine  or  opinion  arose  .  .  .  .with  none  of  whom  do  we 
communicate,  knowing  them  to  be  irreligious,  impious,  unrighte- 
ous, iniquitous,  who  instead  of  venerating  Jesus  Christ,  only 
profess  him  in  name."^  "  The  Lord,"  says  Irenaeus,  "  shall 
judge  all  those  who  are  without  the  truth  :  that  is,  without  the 
church.'"'  "  If  they  are  heretics  they  cannot  be  Christians," 
according  to  Tertulhan,'  who  also  judged,  that  "heresies  had 
not  inflicted  less  injury  on  the  Christians  by  their  perverse  doc- 
trines, than  Antichrist  by  his  horrible  persecutions."^  Clement 
of  Alexandria  affirms,  that  "  he  who  revolts  against  the  eccle- 
siastical doctrine,  and  falls  into  the  opinions  of  human  heresies, 
ceases  to  be  a  man  of  God,  and  faithful  to  the  Lord."^  Origen 
continues  the  same  doctrine  :  "As  those  shall  not  possess  the 
kingdom  of  God,  who  have  been  defiled  by  fornication,  and 
uncleanness,  and  impurities,  and  idolatry  ;  so  neither  shall  he- 
retics."™ "  If  any  one,  reading  the  gospel,  applies  to  it  his 
own  interpretation,  not  understanding  it  as  the  Lord  spake  it, 
truly  he  is  a  false  prophet,  uttering  words  from  his  own  mind. 
These  words  may  fairly  be  understood  of  heretics."'^  "  Nor 
can  that  man  be  accounted  a  Christian,"  says  Cyprian,  "  who 
doth  not  remain  in  the  truth  of  his  gospel  and  faith."" 

g  IIoAAoi  o<  aSsst  Kcu  ^Kaa-qmy-ct  Kiyitv  h'J.)  TrpdrTitv  iJ'iJ'A^a.v  .  .  .  .  Zv  ohiivi  Kwee- 
vovfiiv,  ol  yveepi^ovris  &5iotj;  x.xi  acnjiilQ  k.%1  oJIkw;  k**  dvof^ou;  ai/Toug  uTraf^ovTAc. — 
Just.  Mart.  Dial,  cum  Tryph.  p.  208.  ed.  Thirl. 

b  "  Doininus  judicaturus  est  eos  omnes  qui  sunt  extra  veritatem,  id  est. 
qui  sunt  extra  ecclesiam." — Adv.  Hferes.  1.  iv.  c.  33.  al.  62. 

'  "  Si  haerjetici  sunt,  Christiani  esse  non  possunt." — De  Prsescript.  c.  37. 
p.  215.  ed.  Rigalt.  1664.  .    '   ■         '   .     ■<:      ^     ■ 

k  Praescript.  c.  4. 

I  "AvQpaiTro;  thett  too  6sou  x*<  via-ro;  t$  Ku/)/a>  Sutfxmiv  &'7rox^Kix.i\i ,  o  &vti\ii.it.Ti<Tetz 
T>iv  iKKkiTicLi-rum  7rxpa^o(rtv,  k«/  d.TtoTx.ip'ryio'A;  ih  S'o'^a.i  aipi^iaiv  ivSpaiTrivav. — fetro- 
mat.  lib.  vii.  p.  890.  ed.  Potter. 

m  Origen.  ap.  Pamphil.  Apol.  torn.  v.  p.  225.    Oper.  Hieron.  Paris,  1706. 

n  Horn.  ii.  in  Ezech.  torn.  iii.  p.  362. 

o  "  Nee  Cliristianus  videri  potest  qui  non  permanet  in  Evangelii  ejus  et 
fidei  veritate." — De  Unit.  Eccl.  "" 

VOL.  I. — 14 


106  HERESY  CONDEMNED  BY  THE      [p.  I.  CH.  V. 

The  practice  of  the  church  was  in  accordance  with  these 
principles.  Heretics  were  always  regarded  as  cutoff  from  the 
church,  and  to  be  avoided  by  all  Christians.  Irenseus  relates, 
from  the  tradition  of  Polycarp,  a  disciple  of  St.  John,  that  when 
the  apostle  went  to  the  bath  at  Ephesus,  and  beheld  Cerin- 
thus  there,  he  departed,  saying,  "  Let  us  fly,  lest  it  should  fall 
upon  us,  for  Cerinthus  the  enemy  of  the  truth  is  there."p 
Polycarp  himself,  when  asked  by  the  heretic  Marcion,  "  Whe- 
ther he  knew  him,"  answered,  "  I  know  thee,  the  first-born  of 
Satan."  "  So  great  care,"  says  Irena;us,  "  had  the  apostles 
and  their  disciples  not  to  communicate,  even  by  words,  with 
those  who  adulterated  the  truth  ;  as  Paul  also  said  :  '  A  man 
that  is  a  heretic  after  the  first  and  second  admonition  reject, 
knowing  that  such  a  one  is  perverted,  and  sinneth,  being  con- 
demned by  himself.'  ""^  Heretics  were  only  received  into  the 
church  on  confessing  their  fault,  as  IreuKUS  intimates  in  the 
case  of  Cerdo.^  Those  who  taught  false  doctrines  were 
condemned  and  anathematized.  Thus  Victor  and  the  Roman 
church  expelled  Theodotus,  Artemon,  and  their  followers,  who 
held  that  Christ  was  a  mere  man.^  Noetu  swas  condemned  at 
Ephesus,'  and  Paulus  of  Samosata  at  Antioch,  by  seventy 
oriental  bishops,  who  in  their  epistle  to  all  churches  speak 
thus  :  "  We  also  wrote  and  exhorted  many  bishops  afar  off,  to 
procure  a  remedy  of  this  deadly  doctrine""  ....  and  having 
alluded  to  the  scandalous  life  of  Paulus,  they  observe,  that  had 
he  been  orthodox,  they  would  have  examined  into  this  ;  "  but 
we  have  not  judged  it  fit  to  take  account  of  these  things  in  the 
case  of  one  who  hath  betrayed  the  mystery,  and  boasted  him- 

p  Ireneeus,  adv.  Hseres.  lib.  iii.  c.  3. — 'l«a'vv«?  o  roo  Kt/g/sy  f^itBmk,  h  tw 
^'R^iercf  TTogiuBitg  f.MyucrBui,  kx)  iS'^vto-ai  K^pivSov,  \^vi\clto  tou  i2'J.Xuniw  jui  Mya-d/ulvoc, 
aw'  iTTHTtMr  •iiiyuy.i]/,  (Ati  xm  to  fictActmoy  (rvy.7ticr^,  hi'oy  oVtoj  Kflg/v^oi/,  Ttiu  tjis  dhuBtitt; 

1  Ibid.  ,     ■,     . 

■•.>■  Adv.  Haeres.  iii.  c.  4.  ,  .      .  • 

s  Euseb.  V.  28.  Fleury,  iv.  33.  ■    , 

'  Fleury,  liv.  v.  c.  52. 

^i^uTrauv  Ti7;  ba)ix'7>i(^i^ou  (StJuax.u.AU;. — Euseb.  vii.  C.  30. 


SECT.    II.]  ;       PRIMITIVE    CHURCH.  ''  107 

self  in  tli3  accursed  heresy  of  Artemon  :  for  why  should  we 
not  declare  his  parent  ?  .  .  .  .  Having  therefore  expelled  him 
as  an  enemy  of  God,  and  remaining  obstinate,  we  are  compelled 
to  ordain  another  bishop," "^  &c.  On  the  same  principle  the 
holy  oecumenical  synod  of  three  hundred  and  eighteen  bishops 
at  Nice,  declared  all  who  should  deny  the  divinity  of  Christ  to 
be  anathema.'^  It  is  needless  to  go  further  in  accumulating 
proof  that  the  church  in  all  ages,  from  the  beginning,  regarded 
heresy  as  a  crime  destructive  of  salvation.  Even  the  sects 
which  separated  from  the  church  bore  testimony,  by  their  very 
act  of  separation,  to  their  belief  that  those  who  taught  doctrines 
contrary  to  the  truth,  were  not  to  be  held  Christians,  or  com- 
municated with. 

3.  And  the  same  doctrine  has  been  continually  received 
amongst  professing  Christians  of  all  appellations  to  the  present 
day.  At  the  reformation  all  parties  received  the  definition  of 
faith  called  the  Creed  of  Athanasius,  in  which  it  is  declared, 
that  "  whosoever  will  be  saved,  before  all  things  it  is  necessary 
that  he  hold  the  catholic  faith,  which  faith  except  every  one  do 
keep  lohole  and  undefiled,  without  doubt  he  shall  perish  ever- ' 
lastingly."  Nothing  can  be  more  decisive  than  this  of  the  doc- 
trine of  the  reformation ;  for  Lutherans,  and  Zuinglians,  and 
Calvinists  vied  with  each  other  in  their  adoption  of  the 
Athanasian  Creed.''     Nor  was  this  merely  a  speculative  doc- 

V  Toy  i'i  i^op^>i<rd/uitvi)V  to  y.'ja-T>iptn,  lau  i/n7ro/i>.7nuovra.  tji  f^i^p^  ui^iTU  tvi  u/jts^^J 
(t/  >«/>  oy  V?))  fJiOKli  TOv  wa.TSga  ai/Toy  f'iixZ^at)  ovSh  S'hv  >iyou/u.iQx  toutchv  Tovi  Koyiir- 
fxnui  a7ra.lTiiv  ....  ha.yKo.T^Vfji.iy  ouv  avTiTctira-of^iVov  xiiriv  r^  Qi^KXt  y.^  s'i'icivtx 
sxxjify^avasc,  X..  T.   X. — Ibid.  

w  Socrat.  Hist.  Eccl.  i.  c.  8.  Theodoret.  ii.  c.  12. 

"^  See  the  Articles  of  Smalcald,  Formula  Concordiae,  Confess.  Helvet.  i, 
c.  xi.  ;  Confess.  Gallic,  art.  v. ;  Belgica,  art.  ix. ;  Bohemica,  art.  iii.  &c. 

The  Zuinglians  said  in  their  Confession  :  "  We  abominate  the  impious 
doctrine  of  Ariiis  and  the  Arians  against  the  Son  of  God,  especially  the 
blasphemies  of  Michael  Servetus  and  his  sect,  which  Satan  drew  as  from 
hell  by  their  means  against  the  Son  of  God,  and  most  audaciously  and 
impiously  scattered  through  the  world."  "  We  execrate  the  madness  of 
Eutyches  and  the  Monothclitcs,"  &c.     Confess.  Helvet.  i.  c.  xi.    All  the 


108  HERESY  CONDEMNED  BY  THE     [p.  I.  CH.  T. 

trine  witli  them.  Luther  held  Zuinghus,  CEcolampadius,  and 
their  followers,  as  heretics  in  the  question  of  the  eucharist, 
and  accordingly  refused  to  hold  any  communion  with  them. 
The  Lutherans  regarded  the  Sacramentarians  as  heretics,  while 
both  in  their  turn  denounced  the  Socinians  and  Anabaptists  as 
most  grievous  heretics,  and  separated  them  from  all  commu- 
nion. Calvin  styles  Servetus  (one  of  the  Socinian  and  Ana- 
baptist sect)  "  a  monster,"y  and  was  instrumental  in  his  being 
burned  alive  for  heresy.^  The  reformed  of  Holland  expelled 
the  Arminians  as  heretics,  not  only  from  their  communion,  but 
from  their  country.  I  merely  adduce  these  specific  acts  to 
prove  the  universal  consent  of  the  foreign  reformation,  that 
heresy  is  a  most  grievous  sin,  and  that  they  who  are  guilty  of 
it,  are  not  to  be  treated  as  Christian  brethren.  The  principle 
of  temporal  persecution  for  religion,  is  perfectly  distinct  from 
the  original  principle  of  the  church  with  regard  to  heresy.  It 
arose  several  centuries  after  the  foundation  of  Christianity. 

4.  The  sense  of  the  Church  of  England  admits  of  no  doubt. 
The  Athanasian  Creed,  which  she  declares,  "  ought  thoroughly 
to  be  behoved  and  received,"  as  it  "  may  be  proved  by  most 
certain  warrants  of  holy  Scripture,"''  is  decisive  on  the  ques- 
tion ;  and  in  the  collect  for  Good  Friday  we  pray  for  "  here- 
tics," that  they  may  be  "  fetched  home  to  God's  flock,"  and 
*'  saved  ;"  evidently  implying  that  they  are,  as  heretics,  out  of 
the  way  of  salvation.  Our  most  noted  theologians  hold  the 
same  doctrine.  Bishop  Jewel  says  :  *'  Heresy  is  a  forsaking 
of  salvation,  a  rejection  of  God's  grace,  a  departure  from  the 


confessions  of  the  Lutherans  and  Calvinists  are  full  of  condemnations  of 
various  heresies  in  the  strongest  terms. — See  chap.  xii. 

>•  "  Nostro  quoque  sseculo  emersit  non  minus  exitiale  monslnim  Michael 
Servetus." — Inst.  ii.  14.  5.  "  Manichagorura  delirio  occurrere  necesse  est, 
quod  rursus  hac  aetate  invehere  tentavit  Servetus  ....  hie  diabolicus 
error  quam  crassas  et  fcedas  absurditates  secum  trahat,"  &c. — Inst,  i.  16. 
5.     "  Cavendum  tamen  est  a  diaholica  imaginatione  Serveti." — ii.  9.  3. 

^  Mosheim,  cent.  xvi.  sect.  iii.  part  2.  c.  4,  s.  4. 

*  Art.  viii.         •  ■         -  '  ■     ' 


SECT.  II.]  BRITISH    CHURCH.  109 

body  of  Christ,"^  &c.  Bishop  Pearson  says  :  "  A  man  may  not 
only  passively  and  involuntarily  be  rejected,  but  also  may  by 
an  act  of  his  own  cast  himself  out  and  eject  himself"  (out  of 
the  church),  "  not  only  by  plain  and  complete  apostasy,  but  by 
a  defection  from  the  unity  of  faith,  falling  into  some  damnable 
heresy."''  Dr.  Barrow  says  :  "  In  regard  to  this  union  in 
faith  peculiarly,  the  body  of  Christians  adhering  to  it  was  called 
the  catholic  church,  from  which  all  those  were  esteemed  ipso 
facto  to  be  c#t  off  and  separated,  who  iii  any  point  deserted 
that  faith  ;  '  such  a  one,'  (saith  St.  Paul)  l^eo-TpccTrrat,  '  is  turned- 
aside,'  or  hath  left  the  Christian  way  of  life.  He  in  reality  is 
no  Christian,  nor  is  to  be  avowed  or  treated  as  such,  but  is  to 
be  disclaimed,  rejected,  and  shunned."  Having  proved  this  to 
be  the  doctrine  of  the  Christian  church  in  early  times,  he  adds : 
"  Hence  in  common  practice,  whosoever  did  appear  to  differ 
from  the  common  faith,  was  rejected  as  an  apostate  from  Chris- 
tianity, and  unworthy  the  communion  of  Christians."'^ 

5.  Even  dissenters  have  admitted  the  same  doctrine.  The 
divines  of  Westminster  (Presbyterians,)  in  their  "Humble 
Advice,"  declared  that  "  the  catholic  visible  church  consists  of 
all  those  throughout  the  world  that  profess  the  true  religion,'" 
&c.  Owen,  a  leader  of  the  Independents,  admits  that  the 
church  of  Christ  must  have  "  belief  of  the  same  doctrine  of 
truth  which  is  according  to  godliness,  the  same  articles  of  faith, 
and  the  public  profession  thereof :"  that ''  although  any  society 
of  men  should  profess  the  Scripture  to  be  the  word  of  God,  and 
avow  an  assent  unto  the  revelation  made  therein ;  yet  by  the 
conceptions  of  their  minds,  and  misunderstanding  of  the  sense 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  therein,  they  may  embrace  and  adhere  unto 
such  errors,  as  may  cut  them  off  from  all  communion  with  the 
catholic  church  in  faith."  ....  And  "  in  case,  through  the 
subtlety,  &c.  of  those,  by  whom  damnable  doctrines  are  broach- 
ed, the  church  itself  whereunto  they  do  belong,  is  not  able  to 


Apolojria,  p.  18.  "  On  the  Creed,  art.  ix. 

On;_the  Unity  of  the  Church.  Works,  vol.  2.  p.  762. 


li 


110  HERESY    CONDEMNED    BY    SEPARATISTS.      [p.  I.  CH.  V. 

rebuke  and  suppress  them,"  &c.,  in  such  a  case  synods  may  be 
resorted  to.''  The  admissions  of  some  of  tlie  modern  dissen- 
ters on  this  point  are  also  clear  and  decisive.  "  Can  any 
person  then,  who  professes  to  be  a  believer  in  Christianity, 
doubt  whether  there  are  not  some  doctrines  essential  to 
religion,  '  truths  according  to  godliness,'  the  cordial  and  duly 
impressive  belief  of  which  is  indispensable  to  holy  character, 
admission  into  the  Divine  favour,  and  the  attaining  of  future 
blessedness  ?  What,  in  particular  those  fundaftiental  truths 
are,  every  person,  every  community,  is  bound  to  form  the  best 
judgment  in  their  power  ;  but  it  is  self-evident  that  a  Christian 
church  must  exercise  its  solemn  decision  upon  this  point,  and 
that  such  a  decision  must  he  at  the  basis  of  its  union. ''^  Such 
doctrines  "  a  faithful  church  must  hold  fast,  and  even  make 
them  conditions  of  communion  ;  conditions  not  by  a  formal  and 
merely  verbal  confession,  but  by  the  evidence  of  their  soul- 
animating  power.  Nor  is  this  requirement  chargeable  with 
persecution,  or  usurpation,  or  intolerance,  or  an  infringement 
of  any  man's  liberty ....  The  intolerance,  the  attack  upon 
liberty,  is  on  the  -side  of  those,  if  such  there  be  who  call  us 
narrow,  bigoted,  or  uncharitable,  and  who  Avould  force 
themselves  into  our  communion,  in  opposition  to  our  con- 
scientious sense  of  duty  to  Christ  our  sovereign,  and  a  regard 
to  our  own  peace  and  edification."^  Nothing  can  be  more 
reasonable,  and  at  the  same  time  more  calculated  to  justify  the 
invariable  practice  of  the  church  in  proposing  certain  creeds  as 
the  conditions  of  her  communion,  and  excommunicating  those 
who  teach  false  doctrines. 

6.  Having  thus  proved  that  according  to  Scripture  and  univer- 
sal consent,  heresy  is  a  most  deadly  sin,  I  shall  only  add  here 
that  the  church  must  certainly  have  the  power  of  expelling 
those  who  are  guilty  of  it,  from  her  communion.  If  Christians 
may  separate  even  those  who  are  guilty  of  offences   against 


«  The  true  Nature  of  a  Gospel  Church,  p.  404,  405. 417. 
<■  Library  of  Eccles.  Knowledge,  Essays  on  Ch.  Polity,  vol.  ii.  p.  401, 
See  also  Tract  ou  Const,  of  Prim.  Ch.  vol.  i.  p.  39. 


SECT.  II.]  EXCOMMUNICATION   OF   HERETICS.  Ill 

fraternal  charity,  as  I  have  elsewhere  observed ;"  how  much 
more  must  they  be  bound  to  remove  from  their  communion 
those  who  dare  to  corrupt  and  destroy  the  holy  truth  revealed 
by  God  himself  for  the  salvation  of  mankind.     Not  only  is  this 
crime  more  directly  offensive  to  God,  but  it  is  more  dangerous    , 
to  us  ;  for  offences  against  morals  and  charity  carry  their  own 
condemnation  with  them  :  every  one   observes  in  a  moment    j 
their  deformity  and  contradiction  to  the  divine  law  ;  but  heresy 
commonly   appears  in  the  character  of  goodness    and   piety. 
"  And  no  marvel,"    says  the  apostle,  "  for  Satan  himself  is 
transformed  into  an  angel   of  light.     Therefore  it  is  no  great 
thing  if  his  ministers  also  be  transformed  as  the  ministers  of 
righteousness  ;  whose  end  shall  be  according  to  their  works  "    ; 
(2  Cor.  xi.  14,  15).     And  so  we  knpw  from  ecclesiastical  his-    ; 
tory,  that  the  founders  of  almost  all  heresies,  as  Arius,  Pelagius, 
Nestorius,  &c.  have  been  famed  for  external  piety  and  sanctity. 
Were  it  otherwise,  indeed,  the  novelty  of  th-eir  opinions  would 
excite  too  much  apprehension  among  their  hearers  to  render    : 
them  in  reality  dangerous  :  but  when  men  of  apparent  sanctity    \ 
and  integrity  earnestly  assert  their  doctrines  as  true  and  ortho-     \ 
dox,  then  even  the  faithful  may  be  in  danger  of  forsaking  their      \ 
stedfastncss  ;  and  it  was  necessary  that  such  temptations  should      j 

arise,  in  order  to   sift  the  chaff  from  the  wheat ;  for,   as  the      / 

I 

apostle  says  :  "  There  7nust  be  also  heresies  among  you,  that  \ 
they  which  are  approved  may  be  made  manifest  among  you  " 
(1  Cor.  xi.  19).  That  is,  God  provides  that  the  very  heresies 
which  he  permits  to  fall  as  a  judgment  on  proud  and  carnal 
spirits,  shall  only  purify  and  glorify  that  church  they  are  appa- 
rently destined  to  destroy.  i  . 

It  is  therefore  absolutely  necessary  that  the  church  should 
be  able  to  separate  heretics  from  its  communion ;  and  the  Scrip- 
ture gives  such  a  power  :  "  A  heretic  after  the  first  and  second 
admonition  reject."  .  .  .  .  "  From  such  tvithdraw  thyself"  .  .  . 
and  finally  :  "  If  he  shall  neglect  to  hear  the  church,  let  him  be 

s  In  the  preceding  cliapter,  sect.  ii.  art.  G. 


112  EXCOMMUNICATION  OP  HERETICS.  [p.  I.  CH.  V. 

unto  thee  as  a  heathen  man  and  a  pubhcan.  Verily  I  say  unto 
you,  whatsoever  ye  shall  bind  on  earth  shall  be  bound  in  heaven, 
and  whatsoever  ye  shall  loose  on  earth  shall  be  loosed  in  hea- 
ven." The  church's  power  of  judgment  in  cases  of  heresy  is 
reasonably  to  be  inferred  from  this  last  passage,  because,  though 
our  Saviour  had  originally  only  supposed  a  case  of  sin  against 
the  law  of  charity,  he  concludes  by  expanding  ecclesiastical 
judgments  to  all  matters  of  religion.  "  Whatsoever  ye  shall 
bind,"  &c.  Nor  can  any  reason  be  assigned  why  the  church 
should  not  take  cognizance  of  heresy  amongst  her  members,  as 
well  as  of  any  other  sin.  It  is  evident,  also,  from  what  has 
been  said  in  this  Section,  that  Christians  have  in  all  ages,  from 
the  beginning,  regarded  the  Christian  society  as  invested  with 
such  a  right,  and  perpetually  acted  upon  it ;  and  that  those 
whose  doctrines  were  pronounced  false  by  the  voice  of  the 
Christian  world,  and  who  remained  pertinacious  in  their  errors, 
were  universally  rejected,  and  no  longer  regarded  as  Christians. 
On  this  subject  I  shall  speak  more  fully  elsewhere  (Part  IV) ; 
but  here  it  must  be  observed,  that,  as  in  the  case  of  all  offences 
against  charity,  so  in  the  case  of  offences  against  faith,  there 
are  certain  conditions  requisite  to  a  valid  ecclesiastical  judg- 
ment, which,  if  plainly  violated,  render  it  null  and  devoid  of 
all  spiritual  effect.  It  is  very  improba1:)le,  however,  that  the 
universal  church  should  not  perform  these  conditions,  and  it 
might  be  even  argued  that  it  is  impossible  ;  but  at  least  the 
improbability  is  so  great  that  unless  it  can  be  clearly  proved 
by  facts,  that  in  some  case  the  church  did  not  examine  whether 
those  accused  of  heresy  were  reall)''  guilty  of  it,  but  judged  from 
mere  impulse  or  passion  ;  it  is  only  reasonable  to  conclude,  that 
those  who  were  condemned  were  rightly  condemned.  I  hear 
speak  of  sentences  pronounced  by  the  universal  church  ;  but  of 
these,  and  the  judgments  of  particular  churches,  I  shall  further 
treat  in  the  next  section. 


SECT.  III.]  ALL   ERROR    NOT    HERESY.       ,  113 


SECTION  III. 

ALL  ERRORS,  EVEN  IN  MATTERS  OF  FAITH,  ARE  NOT' 

HERETICAL. 

It  has  been  proved  that  Christians  are  bound  by  their  hopes  of 
salvation  to  believe  and  stedfastly  maintain  the  truth  revealed 
by  Jesus  Christ,  and  that  they  cannot,  without  committing 
deadly  sin,  forsake  or  corrupt  any  portion  of  that  truth.  But 
in  order  to  free  this  doctrine  from  all  unjust  consequences  which 
might  be  deduced  from  it,  we  must  consider  the  cases  in  which 
heresy  is  not  to  be  imputed  to  those  who  are  in  error. 

I.  Amongst  doctrines  maintained  by  Christians,  some  have 
been-  certainly  revealed,  and  are  known  to  be  so  by  the  clear 
words  of  Scripture,  and  the  voice  of  universal  tradition.  These 
are  matters  of  faith,  and  cannot  be  pertinaciously  denied  without 
heresy.  Other  doctrines  are  deduced  from  passages  of  Scrip- 
ture which  admit  of  a  different  interpretation,  or  from  doctrines 
of  faith  whence  it  is  not  certain  that  they  follow,  and  are  not 
supported  by  the  voice  of  universal  tradition,  but  have  been 
opposed  by  several  members  of  the  church  at  all  times,  without 
any  condemnation  of  their  doctrine  by  the  church  generally. — ■ 
Such  doctrines  are  matters  of  opinion,  and  they  may  be  received, 
or  not  received,  according  to  the  judgment  of  individuals  or  par- 
ticular churches,  without  heresy  ;  because  there  is  no  certainty 
that  they  were  revealed  by  Christ.  As  St.  Augustine  says  : 
"  Some  points  there  are,  in  which  even  the  most  learned  and 
best  defenders  of  the  catholic  rule  disagree,  yet  the  union  of 
faith  is  preserved."^'  This  distinction  is  admitted  by  all  parties. 
Calvin  observes,  that  ''  there  are  some  things  which  may  be 
controverted  amongst  churches,  yet  do  not  destroy  the  unity  of 

•>  "  Alia  sunt  in  quibus  inter  se  aliquando  etiam  doctissimi  atque  optimi 
regulae  Catholicae  defensores,  salva  fidei  compage  non  consonant." — Contr.- 
Jul.  i.  22.  p.  510.  torn.  x. 
VOL.  I.' — 15 


114  ALL  ERROR  NOT  HERESY.        [p,  I.  CH.  V. 

faith.  For  what  churches  ought  to  separate  merely  for  this 
cause,  if  one  should  suppose  without  any  contentiousness  or 
positive  assertion,  that  souls  departing  from  the  body  ascend  to 
heaven,  and  the  other  should  not  dare  to  determine  the  place, 
yet  hold  that  they  are  alive  to  God  ?"'  In  the  same  manner  the 
Romish  divines  distinguished  between  theological  opinions  and 
doctrines  defule.  Amongst  the  former  they  included  the  points 
disputed  between  the  Thomists  and  Scotists,  the  Jesuits  and 
Dominicans,  the  Ultramontane  and  the  Cisalpine  parties,  the 
doctrine  of  the  immaculate  conception  of  the  Virgin,  &c,  (See 
Part  iv.  ch.  vi.  and  xiv.  Sect,  ii.)  It  is  certain,  therefore,  that 
there  are  doctrines  which  may  be  disputed  without  heresy. 

2.  When  a  doctrine  in  controversy  appears  to  be  taught  by 
Scripture  and  tradition,  and  the  universal  church  has  not  pro- 
nounced any  judgment  against  it ;  particular  churches  are  not 
guilty  of  heresy  in  maintaining  this  doctrine,  even  though  it  may 
be  an  error,  and  may  liave  been  denounced  by  some  other  par- 
ticular churches.  An  instance  of  this  is  afforded  by  the  contro- 
versy between  St.  Cyprian  and  Stephen  of  Rome,  in  the  question 
of  the  validity  of  heretical  baptism.  No  one,  even  of  those  who 
dispute  his  doctrine,  supposes  that  St.  Cyprian  and  those  who 
judged  with  him  were  guilty  of  heresy.  They  were  indeed 
condemned  by  the  Roman  church,  but  the  rest  of  the  church  did 
not  approve  this  measure.  This  is  admitted  by  all  the  Romish 
theologians,  and  they  do  not  themselves  pretend  that  it  is  hereti- 
cal to  maintain  a  doctrine  apparently  supported  by  Scripture 
and  tradition,  against  any  authority  inferior  to  that  of  the  uni 
versal  church.     Thus  they  exempt  the  Galilean  church  in  the 

'  Calvin.  Institut.  lib.  iv.  c.  i.  s.  12. — 'The  Lutherans  admitted  the  same 
in  their  Apology,  where,  in  reference  to  the  universal  church,  it  is  said, 
"  Hsec  ecclesia  proprie  est  columna  veritatis.  Retinet  enim  purum  evan- 
gelium,  et,  ut  Paulus  inquit,  fundamentum,  hoc  est,  veram  Christi  cognitio- 
nem  et  fidem,  etsi  sunt  in  his  etiam  multi  imbecilles,  qui  supra  fundamentum 
sedificant  stipulas  perituras,  hoc  est,  quasdem  inutiles  opiniones,  quae  tamen, 
quia  non  evertunt  fundamentum,  tunc  condonantur  illis,  turn  etiam  emen- 
dantur." — Apol.  Conf.  Angust.  iv. 


SECT.   III.]  ALL    ERROR    NOT    HERESY.  115 

time  of  Charlemagne  and  afterwards  from  heresy,  though  it 
rejected  the  worship  of  images  decreed  in  the  Synod  of  Nice, 
A.D.  787,  but  which  it  did  not  acknowledge  to  be  oecumenical.'^ 
Even  Transubstantiation  and  Purgatory,  according  to  them, 
were  not  matters  of  faith,  till  the  Councils  of  Lateran  and  Flo- 
rence had  defined  those  doctrines. 

3.  If  even  a  doctrine  has  been  declared  dejide  by  the  legiti- 
mate judgment  of  the  universal  church,  still  if  through  an  error 
of  fact  it  is  supposed  by  some  churches  not  to  have  been  so 
declared,  they  do  not  incur  heresy  in  retaining  a  different  doc- 
trine. This  is  admitted  by  Romanists,  and  it  is  a  principle  of 
considerable  importance.  They  excuse  from  heresy  those 
churches  which  did  not  receive  the  condemnation  of  the  "  three 
chapters "  by  the  fifth  oecumenical  synod,  on  the  ground  that 
these  churches  were  uncertain  whether  it  was  oecumenical.^ — 
For  the  same  reason  they  excuse  the  Western  bishops  who 
.  rejected  the  Synod  of  Nice  (called  the  Seventh  Synod)."^  The 
Galileans  excuse  for  the  same  reason  the  Ultramontanes,  for 
not  receiving  the  decrees  of  the  Councils  of  Constance  and 
Basil,  concerning  the  superiority  of  a  general  synod  to  the  Pope.'^ 
In  like  manner  the  cardinal  of  Lorraine  and  the  Galileans  gene- 
rally did  not  receive  the  Synod  of  Florence  as  oecumenical,  nor 
its  decree  on  the  Papal  supremacy,  and  yet  were  free  from 
heresy."  It  appears,  therefore,  that  those  who  on  strong  grounds 
deny  that  the  church  has  actually  judged  in  a  particular  contro- 

^  Tournely,  de  Ecclesia,  torn.  i.  p.  402.  Collet,  Tractatus  de  Incarna- 
tione,  appendix,  s.  5.  Bossuet,  Defensio  declar.  cler.  Gallic,  torn.  ii.  p. 
5-27,  &c. 

1  Tournely,  torn.  i.  p.  401. 

m  Bailly,  Tractatus  de  Eccl.  Christi,  torn.  i.  p.  423.  Delahogue,  de  Ec- 
clesia, p.  177. 

n  Bailly,  torn.  i.  p.  425.     Bossuet,  Defens.  declarat.  cleri  Gallicani. 

o  Fleury,  liv.  164.  s.  74. — It  is  acknowledged  by  Tournely,  Hooke,  and 
other  Romish  theologians,  that  the  cecumenicity  of  the  synod  of  Florence 
is  doubted  by  some. — See  Part  iv.  Chapter  xi.  Section  v.  According  to 
Andradius  (de  Script,  et  Trad.  Auctor.  lib.  ii.  fol.  251),  France  never  ac- 
knowledged the  Synods  of  Florence  as  general. 


116  ALL  ERROR  NOT  HERESY.        [p.  I.  CH.  V, 

versy,  are  free  from  heresy,  even  though  they  hold  a  doctrine 
which  has  been  condemned.  And  the  reason  of  this  is,  that 
there  is  still  a  legitimate  doubt  whether  the  contrary  doctrine 
was  revealed  by  Christ. 

4.  From  the  preceding  principle  it  follows,  that  churches 
which  through  an  eiror  of  fact,  but  on  strong  reasons,  believe 
a  doctrine  to  have  been  defined  by  the  universal  church  as  a 
matter  of  faith,  which  was  in  reality  not  so  defined,  and  which 
is  erroneous  even  in  faith,  are  not  guilty  of  heresy  in  holding 
that  doctrine.  Thus  the  African  and  some  other  Western 
churches  opposed  themselves  to  the  judgment  of  the  fifth  CEcu^ 
menical  Synod  against  the  "three  chapters,"  because  they 
believed,  through  mistake,  that  the  fourth  Oecumenical  Synod 
had  approved  them.  And  in  this,  and  all  similar  cases,  those 
who  are  in  error  are  free  from  heresy,  when  they  judge  (on 
probable  grounds)  their  opinion  supported  by  a  greater  scriptural 
and  ecclesiastical  authority  than  that  of  their  opponents. 

5.  In  conclusion  it  must  be  observed  that  there  is  a  great  dif- 
ference between  those  who  actually  apostatize  from  the  evident 
truth,  and  those  who  have  been  born  and  educated  out  of  the 
pale  of  the  church's  teaching,  and  have  indeed  imbibed  from 
their  parents  or  instructors  doctrines  contrary  to  the  truth  in 
some  points,  but  who  maintain  them  without  obstinacy,  and 
with  a  willingness  to  embrace  the  truth  revealed  by  Christ, 
whatever  it  may  be.  It  would  be  inconsistent  with  that  charity 
which  "  hopeth  all  things,"  to  maintain  absolutely  that  such 
persons  are  separated  from  Christ.  St.  Augustine  teaches  this 
doctrine:  "the  apostle  Paul  indeed  said,  'A  heretic  after  the 
first  and  second  admonition  reject,'  &c. ;  they  however  who 
defend  their  opinion,  though  false  and  perverse,  with  no  perti- 
nacious vehemence,  especially  if  they  have  not  themselves  in-r 
vented  it  with  presumptuous  audacity,  but  received  it  from 
parents  who  had  been  seduced  and  fallen  into  error ;  and  if  they 
are  seeking  after  the  truth  with  cautious  solicitude,  and  ready 
t,g  be  corrected  when  they  have  discerned  it,  such  men  are  by 


SECT.   III.]  ALL    ERROR    NOT    HERESY.  '  117 

no  means  to  be  accounted  among  heretics. "p  This  is  also  the 
doctrine  of  Archbishop  Laud,  who  says  :  "  If  any  man  be  a 
leader  and  a  teaching  heretic,  and  will  add  schism  to  heresy, 
and  be  obstinate  in  both,  he  without  repentance  must  needs  be 
lost ;  while  many  that  succeed  him  in  the  error  only,  without 
the  obstinacy,  may  be  saved.  For  they  which  are  misled  and 
swayed  with  the  current  of  the  time,  hold  the  same  errors  with 
their  misleaders,  yet  not  supinely,  but  with  all  sober  diligence 
to  find  out  the  truth  ;  not  pertinaciously,  but  with  all  readiness 
to  submit  to  truth  so  soon  as  it  shall  be  found  ;  not  uncharitably, 
but  retaining  an  internal  communion  with  the  whole  visible 
church  of  Christ  in  the  fundamental  points  of  faith,  and  per- 
formance of  acts  of  charity ;  not  factiously,  but  with  an  earnest 
desire  and  a  sincere  endeavour  (as  their  place  and  calling  gives 
them  means,)  for  a  perfect  union  and  communion  with  all  Chris^ 
tians  in  truth  as  well  as  peace  :  I  say  these,  however  misled,  are 
neither  heretics  nor  schismatics  in  the  sight  of  God,  and  are 
therefore  in  a  state  of  salvation.''^ 

This  last  clause  should  be  received  with  some  caution,  and 
be  understood  rather  to  imply  a  pious  and  charitable  hope  and 
opinion,  than  any  absolute  certainty.  It  is  true  that  the  defect 
of  knowledge  diminishes  or  removes  the  guilt  of  sin.  "  If  I  had 
not  come  and  spoken  unto  them  they  had  not  had  sin  "  (John 
XV.  22).  Again  ;  "  That  servant  which  knew  his  Lord's  will, 
and  prepared  not  himself,  neither  did  according  to  his  will,  shall 
be  beaten  with  many  stripes.  But  he  that  knew  not,  and  did 
commit  things  worthy  of  stripes,  shall  be  beaten  with  few 
stripes.  For  unto  whomsoever  much  is  given,  of  him  shall 
be  much  required"  (Luke  xii.  47,  48).     Hence  we  may  infer 

p  "  Qui  sententiam  suum  quamvis  falsam  atque  perversam  nulla  pertinaci 
animositate  defendunt,  preesertim  quam  non  audacia  praesumptionis  suae  pe- 
pererunt,  sed  a  seductis  atque  in  errorem  lapsis  parentibus  acceperunt,  quae- 
runt  autem  cauta  soUicitudine  veritatem,  corrigi  parati  cum  invenerint,  ne- 
quaquam  sunt  inter  hareticos  deputandi." — Aug.  Ep.  43.  al.  162.  Oper.  t. 
2.  p.  8S. 

'i  Laud,  Controversy  with  Fisher,  s.  38,  p.  315. 


118  ALL  ERROR  NOT  HERESY.        [p,  I.  CH.  V. 

that  those  who  maintain  heretical  doctrines  in  ignorance,  are  in 
a  very  different  condition  from  those  who  forsake  the  hght  of 
the  truth ;  but  still,  if  a  society  has  separated  itself,  or  been 
legitimately  separated  by  the  whole  church  of  Christ  for  heresy, 
its  members  are  not  in  the  way  of  salvation  pointed  out  by  Jesus 
Christ.  They  and  their  generations  are  as  the  heathen  ;  and 
though  we  may  have  reason  to  believe  that  many  of  their  de- 
scendants are  not  obstinate  in  their  errors,  still  it  seems  to  mc 
that  we  are  not  warranted  in  afiirming  absolutely  that  they  can 
be  saved.  We  should  not  affirm  any  tiling  of  the  future  con- 
dition of  such  persons.  We  have  no  right  to  "  judge  them  that 
are  without ; "  but  we  know  that  Jesus  Christ  has  proposed 
his  gospel  to  be  believed  and  his  church  to  be  united  with  ;  and 
that  it  is  the  duty  of  every  man  to  whom  they  are  sufficiently 
proposed,  to  receive  them  with  entire  devotion. 


SECTION  IV. 

UNITY    IN    FAITH    CONSIDERED    AS  AN    ATTRIBUTE    AND    SIGN    OF 

THE    CHURCH. 

From  what  has  been  said  in  the  last  section,  it  appears  that 
particular  churches  or  individuals  may  be  in  error  sometimes 
without  incurring  the  guilt  of  heresy,  or  being  separated  in  any 
respect  from  the  catholic  church.  Bellarmine  himself  admits  that 
there  may  be  true  churches  without  the  entire  and  sincere  pro- 
fession of  the  truth  of  God  :  e.g.  those  of  Corinth  and  Galatia, 
which  erred  in  the  matter  of  the  resurrection  and  the  law  of 
Moses. "■  I  proceed  now  to  apply  the  principles  established,  to 
the  question  of  unity  of  faith  considered,  first,  as  an  attribute, 
and  secondly,  as  a  sign,  of  the  church  of  Christ. 

1.  It  has  been  shown  that  there  may  be  doctrinal  diffisrences 
in  the  catholic  church  generally,  or  between  particular  churches ; 

■■  Bellarmin.  de  Cone,  et  Eccl.  lib.  iv.  c.  2. 


SECT.  IV.]  NO  PROMISE  OF  PERFECT  UNITY'.  119 

that  doctrines  of  faith  actually  revealed  may  sometimes  be  con- 
troverted in  the  catholic  church  ;  and  that  erroneous  doctrines 
may  sometimes  be  received  as  matters  of  faith  ;  in  cither  case 
without  heresy  or  separation  from  the  unity  of  faith. 

We  may  conclude  from  this  that  although  it  is  absolutely  the 
duty  of  all  Christians  to  receive  the  whole  truth  revealed,  and 
though  they  are  bound  unceasingly  to  watch  over  the  precious 
deposit  of  the  faith,  and  to  desire  most  earnestly  a  perfect  union 
and  concord  amongst  the  brethren  in  all  matters  of  religion;  still 
there  is  no  promise  that  the  catholic  church  shall  at  all  times  be 
in  fact,  perfectly  agreed  in  all  the  articles  of  Revelation.     It  is 
however  to  be  inferred  most  certainly  from  the  positions  laid 
down  at  the  beginning  of  this  chapter,  that  Christ  has  provided 
the  whole  church  with  some  method  for  preserving  or  recover- 
ing within  itself,  perfect  unity  in  this  respect.     So   strong   an 
obligation  to  believe    the  truth  and  to  avoid  all  false  doctrine, 
infers  the  possihilihj  of  obedience,  and  the  institution,  by  God 
himself,  of  some  ordinary  means  for  the  purpose.     While  these 
means  are  resorted  to,  on  all  hands,  with  good  faith,  and  while 
there  is  an  implicit  belief  in  all  that  Christ  has  revealed,  and  all 
that  the  church  has  received  from  him  ;  there  may  be  some  dif- 
ferences for  a  time  in  particular  doctrines,  arising  from  difTerent 
but  probable  application  of  the  same  rule  ;  and  yet  without  he- 
resy on  either  side.     I  do  not  suppose,  however,  that  these  dif- 
ferences would  extend  (except   under  very  peculiar  circum- 
stances) to  any  matter  of  faith  certainly  revealed  by  Christ ; 
because  it  is  improbable  that  churches  should  entirely  mistake 
the  application  of  the  general  rule  of  judgment  in  such  a  case, 
if  they  apparently  apply  it  with  diligence  and  good  intentions  ; 
and  especially  when  the  divine  aid  is  promised  to  the  disciples 
of  Christ :  "  Where  two  or  three  are  gathered  together  in  my 
name,  there  am  I  in  the  midst  of  them  ; "  and   again  :  "  The 
Spirit  of  truth  shall  lead  you  into  all  truth."     It  is  possible, 
however,   that  through  some  great  ignorance,  or  some  strong 
prejudice,  particular  churches,  or  a  part  of  the  universal  church, 
may  be  for  a  time  misled  in  |ome  point :   I  do  not  here  speak 


120  UNITY  IN  FAITH  NOT  A  SIGN.  [p,  I.  CH.  V, 

of  the  universal  church,  or  affirm  that  it  can  err  when  judging 
collectively.     This  will  be  treated  on  elsewhere. 

2.  I  am  now  to  speak  of  unity  in  faith  as  a  sign  of  the 
church,  or  a  means  by  which  we  can  discriminate  it  easily  from 
all  rival  societies. 

I  contend  that  actual  unity  in  all  matters  of  faith,  cannot  be  a 
sign  of  the  church  in  this  sense  ;  for, 

First,  an  apparent  difference  in  doctrine  between  Christian 
societies,  does  not  furnish,  alone,  any  proof  that  there  is  a  real 
difference  in  faith.     Before  we  can  prove  this,  we  must  know 
the  rule  by  which  we  are  to  distinguish  between  truths  certain- 
ly revealed  and  matters  of  opinion  :    we  must  apply  this  rule 
equitably  and  patiently  to  the  questions  in  controversy,  to  deter- 
mine whether  or  not  the  existing  difference  is  permissible.     We 
must  also  consider  whether  the  apparent  differences  in  faith  are, 
or  are  not,  more  verbal  than  real ;  whether  or  no  they  arise  from 
mutual  misunderstandings  ;  whether  they  arc  held  as  matters 
of  probability  and  with  a  mind  undetermined,  or  as  matters  of 
certainty  ;  whether  they  are  the  doctrines  of  individuals  within 
churches  or  of  those  churches  themselves.     All  this  must  be 
examined  into  before  it  can  be  positively  affirmed  that  in  a  par- 
ticular case  there  is  a  difference  in  a  matter  of  faith.     The  fact 
is  that  absolute  and  perfect  apparent  unity  in  doctrine,  cannot  be 
pretended  to  by  any  society  of  professing  Christians.     It  is  not 
merely  the  Lutherans,   Calvinists,  and  Zuinglians,  who  differ. 
There  are  disputes  in  the  Eastern  churches  ;  and  in  the  Roman 
Obedience,  (not  to  mention  the  differences   about  Jansenism,) 
the  controversies  of  Jesuits,  Dominicans  and  Augustinians,  of 
Scotists  and  Thomists,  of  Ultramontanes  and  Cisalpines,    are 
well  known.     These  latter  differences  may  not  relate  to  matters 
of  faith  or  questions  decided  by  the  universal  church,  as  the 
Romish  controversialists  pretend  ;  but  still  they  are  apparent 
differences  in  doctrine,  and  in  order  to  determine  that  they  re- 
ally do  not  concern  matters  of  faith,  it  is  necessary  to  proceed 
through  the  lengthened  process  above  alluded  to  ;  for  surely 
Romanists  would  not  have  us  to  believe  the  mere  assertion  of 


SECT.  IV.]  UNITY  IN  FAITH  NOT  A  SIGN.  12t 

some  controversialists ;  especially  when  several  other  theolo- 
gians of  their  own  affirm  that  these  disputes  do  concern  faith, 
and  that  one  or  other  party  amongst  them  are  heretics.^ 

Second! I/.  The  apparent  existence  of  unity  in  faith  is  not 
a  proof  of  such  unity  as  Christ  requires  in  his  church,  because 
there  may  be  a  unity  of  error.  There  is  no  impossibility  in  the 
supposition  that  a  heretical  body  may  possess  as  much  apparent 
unity  as  the  church  in  doctrine.  For  example,  the  Nestorians 
or  Eutychians  are  not  less  apparently  united  in  their  faith  than 
the  Eastern  or  the  Roman  churches.  This  unity  may  therefore 
be  a  unity  in  error,  and  in  order  to  determine  whether  it  be  so 
or  not,  we  must  enter  on  a  long  course  of  investigation. 

It  may  be  concluded  then,  that  apparent  unity  or  apparent 
difference  in  faith  is  not  a  safe  ground  to  proceed  on,  in  discri- 
minating the  true  church  from  all  rival  communities  ;  and  the 
question  of  real  unity  involves  a  too  extensive  examination. 
But  I  shall  in  the  next  section  show,  that  we  may  deduce  from 


3  Dr.  Milner  admits  that  "  they  have  also  disputes  in  their  schools,"  but 
"  these  disputes  are  not  about  articles  of  faith." — End  of  Controv.  lett.  xvi. 
Dr.  Baines  also  asserts  :  "  the  doctrines  of  the  catholic  religion  are  every- 
where the  same.  Not  a  difference  w^ill  be  found  in  any  single  article  of 
faith,  amongst  all  its  countless  millions,"  &c. — Sermon  at  Bradford,  1825. 
As  an  illustration  of  these  assertions,  it  may  be  sufficient  to  direct  the  reader 
to  Bossuet's  Defens.  declar.  Cleri  Gall.  (Appendix,  lib.  ii.  c.  13.)  where  he 
says,  that  Bellarmine,  Stapleton,  &e.  hold  the  Galilean  doctrine  of  the  su- 
periority of  a  general  council  to  the  Pope,  to  be  heretical,  and  that  Chris- 
tianus  Lupus,  Nicholas  Dubois,  the  bishop  of  Strigonium,  &c.  regard  the 
question  as  one  defide.  Nicholas  Cevoli  even  maintained  that  "  the  pro- 
positions of  the  Galilean  clergy  are  every  one  taken  out  of  Calvin's  Insti- 
tutes, and  are  plainly  heretical:  that  the  bishops  who  confirmed  them  are, 
as  schismatics  and  heretics,  cut  off  from  the  church,  and  ipso  facto  depriv- 
ed of  all  episcopal  jurisdiction  ;  that  their  communion  should  be  avoided, 
and  even  that  they  ought  to  be  burned  !  "  On  the  other  side  the  Cardinal 
of  Lorrain,  and  Richerius,  with  a  large  number  of  others,  held  that  the 
Ultramontane  doctrine,  as  condemned  by  the  Councils  of  Constance  and 
Basil,  was  heretical,  (see  Bossuet,  Gallia  Orthodoxa,  s.  xvii.)  Even  Bos- 
suet  says,  in  his  "  Defensio,"  that  the  question  is  one  de  fide,  though  he 
does  not  condemn  the  Ultramontanes  as  heretics.  See  Part  iv.  Chap.  vi. 
VOL,  I. — 16 


122  CONCLUSIONS OBJECTIONS.  [pART  1. 

the  obligation  of  unity  in  faith,  certain  conchisions  which  will 
aid  us  to  discriminate  the  true  church. 


SECTION   V. 

CONCLUSIONS. 

1 .  Christ  having  enjoined  unity  in  the  belief  of  the  truth  on 
all  Christians,  there  must  necessarily  be  in  his  church  some 
means  for  preserving  or  restoring  this  unity,  as  well  in  particular 
churches  as  in  the  church  universal ;  and,  therefore,  all  those 
societies  which  are  prevented  by  their  fundamental  principles 
from  sustaining  unity  in  the  truth,  cannot  be  churches  of  Christ. 

2.  Any  society  which  either  separated  itself  from,  or  was 
cut  off  by  the  great  body  of  the  church  of  Christ  in  any  one 
question  of  faith,  after  due  examination  and  without  any  mani- 
fest irregularity  of  proceeding,  is  not  to  be  accounted  a  portion 
of  Christ's  church.* 

3.  Communities  which  notoriously  differ  from  each  other  on 
every  point  of  Christian  doctrine,  cannot  all  be  of  the  church 
of  Christ. 

OBJECTIONS. 

I.  Though  the  apostles  were  enabled  to  determine  what 
was  damnable  doctrine,  yet  Christians  in  succeeding  ages, 
and  now,  cannot  determine  whether  any  particular  doctrine  is 
damnable.  Their  decision  is  fallible  and  uncertain,  and  there- 
fore they  cannot  maintain  any  doctrine  to  be  false  and  heretical. 

Answe7\  This  objection  assumes  as  its  basis,  that  there  are 
now  no  certain  means  of  ascertaining  what  is  true  and  what  is 

'  [So  long  as  it  continues  to  hold  the  error  for  which  it  was  cut  off.  If, 
with  a  jurisdiction  originally  valid,  the  succession  of  the  ministry,  and  the 
orderly  administration  of  the  word  and  sacraments,  are  continued,  and  after 
a  time  the  original  error  is  either  formally  or  tacitly  abandoned,  the  want 
of  a  formal  reception  into  communion  with  other  churches,  from  whatever 
cause,  can  hardly  be  deemed  to  be  an  effectual  exclusion  from  the  church 
catholic] 


CHAP,  v.]  UNITY  IN  FAITH.  123; 

false  in  religion.  Were  this  the  case,  the  regulations  and 
declarations  of  Scripture  with  regard  to  heresy,  would  certainly 
be  obsolete  and  nugatory.  But  this  cannot  be  true,  because 
several  of  them  relate  to  the  very  latter  times  of  the  church, 
and  warn  us  that  even  in  those  ages  when  the  apostles  shall 
have  long  slept,  false  teachers,  heretics,  antichrists,  false 
prophets,  are  to  be  avoided :  that  a  belief  in  the  truth  is  still 
to  be  the  way  of  salvation,  and  damnation  to  be  the  portion  of 
those  that  believe  a  lie,  and  believe  not  the  truth. 

To  doubt  then,  that  in  the  very  latter  days  of  the  church, 
there  shall  still  be  some  means  of  ascertaining  the  truth,  and 
so  ascertaining  it  as  not  to  be  misled  by  false  teachers,  is  to 
doubt  what  inevitably  results  from  Scripture  itself.  But  the 
truth  is,  that  the  argument  when  stripped  of  its  disguise,  is 
essentially  subversive  of  Christianity.  If  there  have  not 
always  been  sufficient  means  of  ascertaining  some  truths  to 
have  been  taught  by  Jesus  Christ,  the  revelation  of  Christ  was 
only  designed  for  temporary  purposes.  It  was  not  designed 
to  illuminate  future  ages.  It  does  not  concern  us.  Conse- 
quently this  principle  is  not  Christian.''  We  are  bound,  on 
the  supposition  that  revelation  is  designed  for  us,  to  assume  it 
as  certain,  that  there  are  means  of  clearly  and  positively 
ascertaining  some  truth  to  have  been  actually  revealed  by 
Christ.  What  those  means  are,  is  a  subject  for  separate  con- 
sideration ;  I  shall  hereafter  show  that  they  are  Scripture  and 
universal  tradition.  But  we  are  entitled  as  Christians  to  cal- 
culate positively  on  their  existence,  and  therefore  to  affirm  that 
the  truth  as  revealed  by  Christ  is  imperative  on  us. 

II,  The  essential  principle  of  the  Reformation  is,  the  right 
of  private  judgment,  that  is,  the  liberty  of  individuals  to  main- 
tain whatever  their  own  judgment  deduces  from  Scripture  ; 
but  it  is  impossible  that  there  should  not  be  infinite  differences 
of  opinion  between  individuals  ;    therefore    (according  to  the 


u  See  Hook,  sermon  ii.  before  the  University  of  Oxford,  p.  39. 


124  UNITY  IN  FAITH.  [PART  I. 

principle  of  the  Reformation)  no  degree  of  uniformity  of  faith 
can  be  requisite  to  salvation. 

Answer.  (1.)  If  the  essential  principle  of  the  Reformation 
justified  individuals  in  maintaining  what  was  contrary  to  the 
truth  revealed  by  Christ,  the  Reformation  would  be  indefen- 
sible ;  but  I  deny  that  the  Reformers  held  this  principle. 
Their  conduct  proves  the  reverse,  for,  as  I  have  before  shown, 
and  shall  hereafter  prove  more  fully,''  they  refused  to  hold 
communion  with  such  as  they  judged  heretics,  and  by  their 
reception  of  the  Athanasian  creed,  maintained  the  necessity  of 
believing  the  truth  revealed  by  Jesus  Christ.  (2.)  If  the  con- 
clusion of  the  objection  be  defended  as  a  truth,  independently 
of  its  supposed  connexion  with  the  Reformation,  then  it  follows 
that  Christianity  is  only  a  name  ;  for  if  no  truth  revealed  by 
Christ  can  now  be  certainly  ascertained,  or  if  it  is  lawful  to 
deny  it,  the  Gospel  must  be  either  obsolete  or  false.  Therefore 
the  conclusion  leads  directly  to  the  subversion  of  religion.  But 
if  it  be  admitted  that  any  truth  revealed  by  Christ  can  now  be 
ascertained,  it  must  be  necessary  to  believe  that  truth.  There- 
fore the  p7'inciple  must  be  admitted. 

III.  It  is  impossible  to  defend  the  Reformation,  except  by 
maintaining  the  right  of  private  judgment  as  above. 

Answer.  (1.)  This  objection  cannot  proceed  from  the  friends 
of  the  reformed,  because  it  would  at  once,  without  proceeding 
another  step,  prove  the  Reformation  unjustifiable.  Accord- 
ingly, it  is  advanced  by  Romanists,  and  by  those  who  maintain 
that  the  societies  of  the  Reformation  have  acted  tyranically 
and  inconsistently,  in  requiring  belief  in  any  creeds.  (2.)  I 
deny  the  fact,  and  shall  hereafter  justify  the  Reformation  on 
different  grounds  altogether. 

IV.  If  the  belief  of  particular  doctrines  be  held  necessary 
to  salvation,  the  infidel  may  reasonably  object  that  Christianity 
cannot  be  true  ;  for,  had  it  been  designed  for  the  salvation  of 
men,  it  could  not  have  failed  in  its  object,  and  been  the  subject 
of  perpetual  dispute  among  its  adherents. 

"  See  chapter  xii.  sect.  iii.  and  part  II.  chapter  vi. 


CHAP,  v.]  OBJECTIONS.  125 

Answer.  (1.)  I  deny  the  consequence;  for  it  sufficiently 
vindicates  the  merciful  design  of  God,  if  the  means  of  salvation 
be  offered  to  men,  without  any  compulsion  on  them  to  avail 
themselves  of  those  means.  It  v^^as  not  the  design  of  God  to 
force  men  to  believe  and  be  saved,  but  to  draw^  them  by  the 
persuasive  power  of  divine  grace.  Therefore  if  Christianity 
be  rejected  or  perverted  by  some  men,  while  it  is  received  by 
others,  it  does  not  fail  of  its  design.  (2.)  Many  disputes 
amonff  Christians  are  consistent  with  uniform  belief  in  the 
truth  certainly  revealed  by  Jesus  Christ. 

V.  Christian  truth  has  no  existence  external  to  the  mind  of 
each  individual.  It  is  not  the  letter,  but  the  sense  of  the  Bible, 
and  that  sense  only  exists  in  our  own  minds.  Therefore  it  is 
impossible  to  affirm  that  any  individual  does  not  maintain  the 
truth,  because  the  persuasion  of  his  own  mind  is  the  truth. 

Answer.  (1.)  If  the  sense  of  each  individual  mind  is  truth, 
then  those  who  hold  Christ  to  be  a  mere  man  believe  the  truth; 
and  those  who  hold  the  contrm-y,  believe  the  truth  also  ;  that 
is,  contradictory  propositions  are  both  true  ;  which  is  absurd, 
and  destroys  the  very  nature  of  truth.  (2.)  Every  proposition 
relating  to  Christianity  is  either  true  or  false,  antecedently  to 
its  being  presented  to  the  mind  of  man.  Therefore  the  judg- 
ment of  the  mind  does  not  affect  the  truth  or  falsehood  of 
Christian  doctrines. 

VI.  It  is  cruel  and  inhuman  to  deny  salvation  to  those  who 
merely  hold  erroneous  doctrines. 

Answer.  (1.)  It  is  not  unreasonable  that  Christ  should  require 
belief  in  the  truth  revealed  by  him,  because  he  had  a  right  to 
offer  salvation  to  man  on  whatever  terms  he  pleased.  Now, 
belief  in  the  truth  revealed  by  him  is  not  an  impossible  con- 
dition, because  though  it  might  be  impossible  for  any  man  to 
constrain  his  own  judgment  to  be  different  from  what  it  actually 
is,  and  though  it  would  be  cruel  in  any  other  man  to  attempt 
to  force  him  to  change  it,  yet  the  difficulty  is  at  an  end,  when 
the  authority  of  God  decides  what  is  true  ;  because  however 
inclined  our  judgment  may  have  been  to  the  contrary,  there  is 


126  UNITY  IN  FAITH.  [PART  I. 

now  a  reason  which  is  irresistibly  convincing;  namely,  the 
infallibility  of  God  himself.^  Consequently  it  is  not  impos- 
sible to  believe  the  truth  certainly  revealed  by  Christ,  and  it 
cannot  be  cruel  or  unreasonable  in  Him  to  require  behef  in  it. 
(2.)  It  has  been  before  observed,  that  every  difference  in  mat- 
ters of  religion  does  not  infer  heresy,  and  the  distinctions  there 
made,  exempt  many  from  the  operation  of  this  principle. 

VII.  Heretics  are  not  more  offensive  to  God,  than  those 
who  are  guilty  of  offences  against  the  moral  law  ;  but  the  latter 
do  not  necessarily  cease  to  be  members  of  the  church,  therefore 
the  former  may  also  be  members  of  the  church. 

Answer.  The  wicked  not  excommunicated  are  only  exter- 
nally, and  therefore  imperfectly,  members  of  the  church,  and 
will  not  receive  salvation  except  they  repent.  Heretics  who 
are  not  excommunicated  openly,  by  their  own  act,  or  by  the 
act  of  the  church,  are  in  the  same  state.  But  if  separated 
from  the  communion  of  the  church,  they  arc  not  even  externally 
members  of  it,  like  those  who  are  justly  excommunicated  for 
their  sins. 

VIII.  Those  who  upheld  the  Mosaic  law  after  the  decree  of 
the  apostles  in  the  Council  of  Jerusalem,  were  heretics ;  and 
yet  the  apostles  held  communion  with  them  (Acts  xxi.  20). 
Therefore  they  formed  part  of  the  church. 

Answer.  The  apostles  had  not  decreed  the  abolition  of  legal 
observances  as  related  to  the  Jews,  but  only  to  the  Gentiles  ; 
but  those  who  were  zealous  of  the  law  in  this  place  were  Jews. 
Therefore  they  were  not  disobedient  to  the  apostles. 

^  [It  is  obvious  that  this  answer  presumes  the  objection  to  be  made  in 
behalf  of  heresy  in  the  strictest  sense,  viz.,  the  pertinacious  refusal  to  be- 
lieve what  is  known  to  be  divinity  taught.  It  does  not  meet  the  plea  that 
it  is  hard  to  punish  men  for  not  believing  that  God  has  revealed  certain 
doctrines.  But  then,  on  the  other  hand,  that  plea  docs  not  lie  against  the 
author's  doctrine,  limited  as  it  has  been  in  the  outset  of  his  statement.  The 
ground  of  punishment  of  heresy  is  not  the  fact  that  a  portion  of  revealed 
truth  is  not  received  as  such,  but  the  disposition  which  is  the  producing 
cause.  The  evidence  of  the  truth  being  the  same,  the  difference  is  in  the 
recipient,  and  therefore  punishable. "J 


CHAP,  v.]  OBJECTIONS.  >  12f 

IX.  We  are  forbidden  to  judge  other  men's  doctrines  to 
be  heretical  or  false  by  the  following  passage  :  "  Who  art  thou 
that  judgest  another  man's  servant  ?  to  his  own  master  he 
standeth  or  falleth ;  yea,  he  shall  be  holden  up  :  for  God  is 
able  to  make  him  stand.  One  man  esteemeth  one  day  above 
another ;  another  esteemeth  every  day  alike.  Let  every  man 
be  fully  persuaded  in  his  own  mind"  (Rom.  xiv.  4,  5). 

Answer-  These  differences  of  opinion  related  to  matters  in 
which  difference  was  justifiable,  not  to  matters  of  faith  clearly 
revealed  by  Christ.  In  such  matters  of  opinion  we  grant,  that 
it  is  unlawful  to  condemn  our  neighbours  ;  but  "  If  any  man 
preach  any  other  gospel  than  that  has  been  preached,  let  him 
be  anathema  "  (Gal.  i.  9)  ;  and  "  If  any  man  come  unto  you, 
and  bring  not  this  doctrine,  receive  him  not  into  your  house  " 
(2  John  10).  Therefore  we  are  bound  to  reject  heretics,  and 
consequently  must  have  some  means  and  some  right  to  deter- 
mine what  is  heresy. 

X.  "  In  a  great  house  there  are  not  only  vessels  of  gold  and 
'  of  silver,  but  also  of  wood  and  earth  ;  and  some  to  honour,  and 

some  to  dishonour,"  &c.  (2  Tim.  ii.  20).  The  apostle  here 
includes  heretics  and  false  teachers  in  the  church,  having  just 
before  spoken  of  Hymenaeus  and  Philetus  (v.  17). 

Answer.  Assuming  that  the  apostle  here  speaks  of  heretics 
as  "vessels  of  wood  and  earth"  made  to  "  dishonour,"  he  only 
refers  to  those  who  having  not  yet  been  openly  separated,  or 
excommunicated,  are  impej'fectly  in  the  church  ;  and,  even  of 
these,  he  declares,  that  they  are  to  "  dishonour,"  that  is,  to  de- 
struction. ,  A  fortiori  then  all  those  who  are  openly  separated 
from  the  church. 

XI.  Sincerity,  or  a  full  persuasion  that  our  interpretation  of 
God's  law  is  right,  is  always  sufficient  to  justify  us  in  God's 
sight,  even  if  we  are  in  error.  (This  is  the  principle  of  Hoadly 
and  his  disciples.)  - 

Answer.  I  reply  with  Rogers,^  that  if  this  alone  be  in  all 

"^  Visible  and  Invisible  Churcli,  part  i.  c.  6. 


128  ON  FUNDAMENTALS.  [P.  I.  CH.  V. 

cases  sufficient,  then  no  one  is  strictly  bound  to  obey  any 
laws  of  Christ  in  the  meaning  he  intended  in  them  ;  no  plain- 
ness is  sufficient  to  oblige  us  to  understand  them,  and  there  can  be 
no  such  thing  as  a  culpable  mistake.  Even  he  who  rejects 
Christianity  because  he  is  persuaded  it  is  false,  must  be  as 
acceptable  to  God,  as  he  who  accepts  it  because  he  beheves 
it  true.  Yet  our  Saviour  denounced  heavy  woes  against  those 
who  rejected  him  (Matt.  xi.  21  ;  Mark  xvi.  16).  I  maintain,  on 
the  contrary,  as  a  self-evident  position,  that  Christians  are  bound 
to  obey  the  laws  and  believe  the  doctrine  of  Christ,  and  that 
nothing  but  natural  incapacity,  or  blameless  ignorance,  can  be 
pleaded  in  excuse  for  their  not  doing  so. 


APPENDIX  TO  CHAP.  V. 

ON    THE    DOCTRINE    OF    FUNDAMENTALS. 

Dr.  Waterland,  in  his  discourse  on  Fundamentals,  observes, 
that  since  the  beginning  of  the  seventeenth  century  this  subject' 
has  passed  through  many  learned  and  judicious  hands,  "  most 
of  them  complaining  of  the  perplexities  appearing  in  it,  but  all 
bearing  testimony  to  the  great  weight  and  importance  of  it."y  Ac- 
cording to"  certain  theologians  of  Holland,  Germany,  and  Gene- 
va, quoted  by  him,  the  questions  of  toleration,  heresy,  secession, 
schism,  union  of  churches,  excommunication,  &c.  all  depend  on 
distinguishing  fundamentals  in  religion.  It  appears,  I  think,  on 
examining  various  controversies  which  have  almost  entirely 
turned  on  this  point,  that  the  perplexity  so  much  and  so  justly 
complained  of,  has  arisen,  and  must  continue  to  prevail,  from 
the  use  of  the  term  "  Fundamental."  This  term  is  capable  of 
so  many  meanings  as  applied  to  Christian  doctrine,  and  it  actu- 
ally is,  has  been,  and  must  continue  to  be,  used  in  so  great  a 
diversity  of  senses,  that  it  is  morally  impossible  to  avoid  per- 
plexity while  it  is  employed  in  controversy.     As  an  ambiguous 


y  Waterland's  Works,  by  Van  Mildert,  vol.  viii.  p.  S7. 


4 
APPENDIX.]  ON  FUNDAMENTALS.  129 

terra,  as  conveying  no  one  definite  notion,  it  seems  unqualified  to 
be  of  any  practical  utility  in  questions  of  controversy. 

1 .  The  term  "  fundamental "  may  rightly  and  properly  be  ap- 
plied to  very  different  notions  in  religion.     It  may  mean  what  is 
at  the  basis  of  all  religion ;  that  is,  belief  in  the  existence  and 
attributes  of  God,  or  it  may  express  what  is  the  first  step  in  the 
Christian  religion — belief  in  Christ  as  the  Messiah,  or  as  a  mes- 
senger sent  from  God.     It  may  signify  those  articles  of  Chris- 
tianity from  which  others  seem  to  be  derived.     It  may  with 
equal  propriety  mean  articles  of  faith  clearly  revealed  by  Christ, 
as  distinguished  from  opinions  or  doctrines  deduced  by  human 
reasoning.     It  may  mean  those  doctrines  which  are  necessary 
to  be  explicitly  believed  or  known  by  all  men  in  order  to  salva- 
tion,  or  those  doctrines  which  must  be  believed  by  every  one 
to  whom  they  are  sufficiently  proposed,  or  which  must  be  be- 
lieved either  explicitly,  or  else  implicitly,  in  order  to  salvation. 
The  term   "fundamental"  maybe  employed  without  any  im- 
propriety in  any  one  of  these  senses,  and  even  in  others  which 
it  is  needless  to  specify  in  this  place.     There  is  nothing  in  the 
term  itself  which  fixes  it  to  any  one  of  them.     It  seems  to  imply 
by  its  constitution  anything  which  is  at  the  foundation  or  begin- 
ning, and  therefore  is  important  or  essential  in  some  sense  or 
other,   either  positively  essential  to   Christianity  itself,  or  rela- 
tively essential  to  us   or   some  of  us,  in  some  sense.     This 
vagueness  and  generality  of  the  term  itself  is  not  limited  by 
common  usage ;  for 

2.  The  term  "fundamental"  is  actually  used  in  the  greatest 
variety  of  meanings  by  different  writers  of  eminence,  and  even 
by  the  same  writers.  Chillingworth,  in  one  part  of  his  "  Reli- 
gion of  Protestants,"  says  :  "That  may  be  sufficiently  declared 
to  one  (all  things  considered)  which  (all  things  considered),  to 
another  is  not  sufficiently  declared  ;  and  consequently  that  may 
he  fundaraental  and  necessary  to  one  which  to  another  is  not 
soT'^     In  a  few  pages  afterwards   he   says  :  "  Fundamental 

^  Religion  of  Protestants,  chap.  ill.  s.  1.3. 
VOL.  I. — 17 


130  ON   FUNDAMENTALS.  [P.  I.  CH.  V. 

points  are  those  only  which  are  revealed  by  God,  and  com- 
manded to  be  p'eached  to  all  and  believed  by  all.'''"'  In  the 
first  quotation  fundamentals  are  regarded  as  doctrines  which 
must  be  believed  by  those  only  to  whom  they  are  sufficiently 
declared  ;  in  the  second,  they  are  regarded  as  doctrines  neces- 
sary to  be  believed  by  all  men.  Laud  in  one  place  understands 
by  them,  doctrines  which  must  be  believed  expressly  and  expli- 
citly by  all  men  without  exception,  and  which  no  man  can  be 
ignorant  of  without  loss  of  salvation."^  In  another  place  he 
says,  that  certain  points  "  are  rvol  formally  fundamental  for  all 
men,  but  for  such  as  are  able  to  make  or  understand  them,"  &c.'' 
Accordingly,  he  teaches  in  one  place  that  the  Apostles'  Creed 
contains  all  fundamentals  \^  in  another,  that  not  only  the  creed 
itself  but  certain  deductions  from  it  arc  fundamental.'^  Water- 
land  regards  fundamentals  in  religion  or  Christianity  as  matters 
"  so  necessary  to  its  being,  or  at  least  its  well-being,  that  it 
could  not  subsist,  or  not  maintain  itself  tolerably  without  it.  " 
Here  are  two  very  different  notions  in  the  same  definition  of 
fundamentals  ;  one  which  connects  these  with  the  very  existence 
of  religion,  another  which  connects  them  only  with  hs perfection. 
This  may  suffice  as  a  specimen  of  the  great  diversity  of  mean- 
ings in  which  the  term  is  used  by  writers  of  respectability.^     In 


"  Religion  of  Protestants,  chap.  iii.  s.  20. 

b  Conference  with  Fisher,  s.  10.  ^  Ibid.  [>.  331.  ''  ^  11. 

.  -^  P.  28.  334.  '  Works,  viii.  p.  88. 

g  [It  may  be  worth  while  to  observe  that  those  meanings  vary  accordingly 
as  the  term  is  used  subjectively  or  objectively,  and  according  to  the  different 
grades  of  subjectivity  and  modes  of  objectivity. 

Laud  and  Chillingworth,  for  example,  use  it  subjectively,  and  in  two 
grades.  (1.)  With  reference  to  a  church,  in  the  first  passage  of  Laud  and 
the  last  of  Chillingworth.  (2.)  With  reference  to  an  individual,  in  the 
other  passages.  In  this  way,  there  may  be  three  grades  of  fundamentals. 
(1.)  Those  which  are  such  to  the  church  catholic,  which  always  have  form- 
ed and  always  must  form  part  of  its  faith.  This  is  the  widest  sense,  and  at 
the  same  time  the  most  definite  ;  comprising  what  Mr.  Palmer  designates  p.s 
doctrines  "  actually  "  and  '•  certainly"  "  revealed  by  Christ."  •  (2.)  Those 
which  are  such  to  a  particular  church ;  the  denial   of  which,  in  any  way, 


APPENDIX.]  ON  FUNDAMENTALS.  131 

fact,  all  those  various  senses  which  I  have  alluded  to  above  as 
fairly  and  rightly  to  be  connected  with  the  term,  have  been 
really  in  fact  so  connected  by  writers  of  our  own  churches,  and 
of  various  other  churches  and  sects. 

3.  Waterland  observes,  with  perfect  truth,  that  there  are 
"almost  as  many  different  rules  for  determining  fundamentals, 
as  there  are  sects  or  parties,"^'  and  thus,  "  that  which  might 
otherwise  serve  (if  all  men  were  reasonable)'  to  end  all  differ- 
ences, has  itself  been  too  often  made  one  principal  bone  of  con- 
tention." Accordingly,  having  himself  first  laid  down  the 
Christian  covenant  and  its  parts,  as  the  rule  for  determining 
fundamentals,  he  proceeds  to  detail  the  different  rules  of  other 
writers  as  follows.  (1.)  Some  regard  the  definition  of  the 
church  as  the  rule  of  fundamentals.  (This  is  the  doctrine  gene- 
rally maintained  by  Romanists,    as   we   may  see   in   Knott, 


would  destroy  its  character  as  a  church  of  Christ,  and  so  cut  it  off  from  the 
church  catholic.  To  this  sense,  the  writers  maintaining  the  5th  opinion  re- 
counted in  our  author's  next  paragraph,  usually  refer.  (3.)  Those  which 
are  such  to  every  iiidividual  member  of  a  church,  without  which  his  mem- 
bership is  dead,  and  devoid  of  saving  efficacy.  This  is  the  narrowest,  and 
least  determinable  sense  ;  and  to  the  attempts  to  cope  with  its  difficulties 
much  of  the  perplexity  attending  the  discussion  of  the  subject  of  fundamen- 
tals may  be  attributed. 

On  the  other  hand,  Waterland  furnishes  an  example  of  the  objective  use 
of  the  term  "  fundamental,"  with  reference  sometimes  to  the  relative  objec- 
tivity of  doctrines,  as  they  bear  upon  the  relations  of  the  individual  to  God, 
and  sometimes  to  their  abstract  objectivity,  as  parts  of  an  entire  and  con- 
nected system  of  truth. 

No  doubt,  the  objective  and  subjective  necessity  of  revealed  truth  are  ex- 
actly co-relative,  and  would  invariably  so  appear  to  us,  were  we  entirely 
competent  to  the  scrutiny.  But  the  practical  aspect  of  the  inquiry  is  in  the 
latter  branch,  and  the  speculative  character  of  the  former  has  generally 
tended  to  the  undue  exaltation  of  human  reason.] 

I"  Works,  viii.  p.  90. 

i  Or,  rather,  united  in  their  sense  of  the  term,  and  their  rule  for  apply- 
ing it.  It  does  not  seem  that  there  is  any  thing  unreasonable  in  employing 
the  term  in  a  sense  different  from  what  we  judge  best.  It  is  merely  a  dif- 
ference of  language  and  usage. 


132  -ON  FUNDAMENTALS,  [p.  I.  CH.  V. 

the  Jesuit,  Tournely,  Bailly,  and  other  of  their  divines.)     (2.) 
Some  regard  whatever  is  asserted  in  sacred  Scripture  as  fun- 
damental.    (3.)  Others  hold  every  thing  that  is  expressly  taught 
in  Scripture  to  be  fundamental,  and  nothing  w^hich  is  not  so 
taught.     (4.)  Another  rule  is,  that  what  Scripture  has  express- 
ly   declared  necessary   is   alone    fundamental.      (5.)   Several 
eminent  writers,  as  Petit,  Usher,  Davenant,  Calixtus,  Chilling- 
worth,  Stillingfleet,   Tillotson,  Whitby,    &c.  have  referred  to 
the  Apostles'  Creed  as  the  rule   and  sample  of  fundamentals. 
(6.)  Others,  with  the  Arian  Clarke,  teach  that  the  fundamentals 
of  religion  are  defined  by  Hebrews  vi.  1,  2.  and  that  we  may 
differ  about  every  thing  else.     (7.)  Locke  and  others  regard  the 
profession  of  faith  made  by  converts  to  Christianity  in  the  apos- 
tolic age,  viz.  "  that  Jesus  is  the  Messiah,"  as  the  only  funda- 
mental.    (8.)  Universality  of  agreement  among  Christians  so 
called,    is  the  rule  of  fundamentals  with  some.     (9.)  Herbert 
and  other  infidels  regarded  the  universal  agreement  of  the  whole 
race    of    mankind     as    the    true    measure    of    fundamentals. 
(10.)  Some  throw  off  all  concern   for  a  right  faith  as  insignifi- 
cant,  and  comprise  all  fundamentals  in  the  single  article  of  a 
good  life,  as  they  call  it ;    to  which  some   are  pleased  to  add 
/azi!/i  in  the  6\y\\\e  jwomisesJ^     (11.)   Some  consider  professed 
love  to  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  as  the  only  fundamental. 

4.  As  it  might  be  conjectured  from  the  infinite  variety  and 
contradiction  of  the  above  definitions  and  rules,  there  is  the 
greatest  difficulty  and  uncertainty  as  to  what  doctrines  are  fun- 
damental. Chillingworth  declares  that  the  variety  of  the  cir- 
cumstances of  different  men,  "  makes  it  impossible  to  set  down 
an  exact  catalogue  of  fundamentals,"^  and  he  is  obliged  to  pro- 
pose, as  the  only  security  against  fundamental  error,  the  belief 
that  Scripture  is  true,  and  that  it  contains  all  things  necessary 
to  salvation  ;  and  the  endeavour  to  find  and  believe  the  true 
sense  of  it."'     Now  if  it  be  impossible  to  determine  practically 


k  Works,  viii.  p.  105—123  '  Relig.  of  Prot.  ch.  iii.  s.  13. 

">  Relig.  of  Prot.  ch.  iii.  s.  13. 


APPENDIX.] 


ON  FUNDAMENTALS. 


133 


what  are  fundamentals  in  Christianity,  the  distinction  is  surely 
not  available  for  practical  purposes.  Knott  the  Jesuit,  Tourne- 
ly,  Bailly,  &c.  regard  all  the  definitions  of  the  Synod  of  Trent 
as  fundamentals.  Chillingworth  holds  nothing  fundamental  be- 
yond the  Apostles'  Creed.  Others  regard  some  of  its  articles 
as  not  fundamental.  Laud  esteems  not  only  the  creed,  but 
some  of  the  deductions  from  it  fundamental.  Locke  includes 
the  Socinians,  Arians,  and  all  other  Unitarians  among  those  that 
believe  fundamentals.  Jurieu,  and  others,  exclude  all  that  do 
not  believe  the  Trinity.  In  short,  this  term  is  used  in  an  infi- 
nite variety  of  different  senses,  according  to  contradictory  rules 
and  with  contradictory  conclusions. 

5.  Now  it  does  not  seem  that  individuals  have  any  right  to 
limit  the  term  to  any  one  meaning.     In  fact,  it  is  impossible  to 
do  so.     Men  will,  in  despite  of  remonstrance,  continue    to  use 
terms  in  the  sense  commonly  understood,  or  customary  among 
those  with  whom  they  associate.     It  is  therefore  perfectly  use- 
less to  require  of  them  to  employ  this  term  in  the  sense  we 
judge  most  desirable.     We  cannot  command  human  language, 
and  therefore  it  would  be  better  to  abstain  from  the  controversial 
use  of  a  term  which  is  so  highly  ambiguous.     Its  extraordinary 
ambiguity  renders  it  unfit  for  all  useful  purposes  in  controversy. 
It  can  only  cause  confusion  and  perplexity,  while  it  affords  the 
most  perfect  facility  to  sophistical  reasoners  to  escape  from  co- 
gent arguments,  by  changing  imperceptibly  the  sense  of  their 
propositions.  Therefore  those  who  propose  any  argument  against 
the  church,  derived  from  "  fundamentals,"   ought  to    be    rc- 
(juired  at  once  to  define  the  term,  and  to  prove  that  their  defini- 
tion is  correct,  and  that  all  other  definitions  are  incorrect.  They 
are  next  to  be  asked  for  the  rule  by  which  fundamentals  are  to 
be  ascertained,  and  Xo  prove  that  rule,  and  to  prove  that  all  other 
rules  are  wrong.     Were  this  process  resorted  to,  before  we  en- 
tered on  a  discussion  concerning  fundamentals,  the  perplexities 
which  it  invariably  brings  with  it,  would  be  at  an  end.     If,  as 
Waterland  observes,  there  are  as  many  rules  for  determining  fun- 
damentals as  there  are  parties  in  religion,  and  if,  (as  he  might 


134  ON  FUNDAMENTALS.  [P.  I.  CH.  V. 

have  added,)  there  are  nearly  as  many  different  senses  of  the 
term  ;  how  can  it  be  imagined  that  the  doctrine  of  fundamentals 
can  tend  to  diminish  existing  disputes,  or  throw  any  hght  on  the 
questions  of  schism,  heresy,  excommunication,  union  of  church- 
es, &c.  ?  This  doctrine  is  itself  the  "  chief  bone  of  controver- 
sy," as  Waterland  says  ; "  and  while  it  continues  to  be  so,  how 
can  it  aid  in  determining  other  controversies  ?  I  do  not  deny 
that  every  one  may  form  a  notion  of  fundamentals  in  his  own 
mind,  and  employ  it  in  speculation  to  discriminate  some  parts 
of  religion  from  others  ;  but  what  I  contend  for  is,  that  it  is  use- 
less in  general  controversy.  ■ 

6.  It  is  very  true,  indeed,  and  very  important  to  be  remem- 
bered, that  a  distinction  is  to  be  made  between  doctrines,  i.  e. 
that  all  doctrines  are  not  matters  of  faith.  This  distinction  I 
have  aheady  ahuded  to,  (chap.  v.  sect,  iii.),  and  in  another  place 
it  will  be  more  fully  examined  (see  Partiv.  chap.  vi.).  But  the 
distinction  here  referred  to,  and  which  is  of  the  utmost  value  in 
all  questions  affecting  the  church,  is  rendered  at  once  perplexed 
and  unavailable,  when  the  ambiguous  term  "  fundamental "  is 
connected  with  it. 

7.  Jurieu,  and  others  after  him,  have  pretended  that  the  catho- 
lic church  of  Christ  consists  of  all  sects  or  denominations  which 
agree  in  "  fundamentals,"  and  hence  th'ey  include  in  the  true 
church,  Romanists,  Greeks,  Churchmen,  Dissenters  of  all  sorts, 
Nestorians,  Eutychians,  and  only  exclude  Socinians. 

This  notion  is  altogether  without  sohd  foundation.  In  the 
first  place  it  has  been  shown  that  the  term  "  fundamental  "  is 
ambiguous  and  that  we  have  no  right  to  restrain  it  to  one  sense. 
Therefore  the  distinction  in  Jurieu's  sense  is  entirely  arbitrary, 
and  there  is  no  reason  why  he  should  affirm  that  the  Socinians 
alone  deny  fundamental  articles  of  religion.  The  Socinians 
themselves  affirm  that  they  believe  fundamentals.  The  Roman- 
ists affirm  that  Jurieu  and  his  party  deny  fundamentals.  By 
what  rule  can  it  be  proved  that  both  are  wrong  ?     Secondly,  it 


Works,  viii.  p.  90. 


APPENDIX 


.]  ON  FUNDAMENTALS.  135 


has  been  shown  that  voluntary  separation  from  the  church,  ex- 
chides  those  who  are  guiky  of  it  entirely  from  the  church  of 
Christ,  and  that  those  are  also  cut  off  from  the  church,  who  are 
regularly  and  legitimately  excommunicated  by  it.  Therefore 
sects  which  are  in  such  a  condition,  form  no  portion  of  the 
church,  even  though  they  should  be  tolerably  sound  in  the  arti- 
cles of  the  Christian  faith.  ■    . 

8.  There  is  a  notion  floating  in  some  minds,  that  some  doc- 
trines of  revelation  are  more  important  than  others,  and  that, 
provided  men  believe  aright  in  the  more  important  matters,  it  is 
not  of  much  consequence  if  they  err  in  lesser  doctrines.   Water- 
land  himself  seems  to  have  been  led  inadvertently  to  counte- 
nance this  notion  in  some  degree."     He  says,  that  in  cases, 
"  where  the  truth  of  the  doctrine  is  at  least  morally  certain,  and 
the  importance  of  it  only  doubtful,  in  such  cases  communion 
ought  not  to  be  divided  or  broken."?     Taking  his  words  in  con- 
nexion with  the  mode  in  which  he  determines  fundamental  doc- 
trines, by  reasoning  from  the  nature  of  a  covenant,  it  would 
seem  that  some  doctrines  actually  revealed  by  Christ,  are  less 
important  than  others,  and  that  we  may  tolerate  error  in  the  one 
case,  but  not  in  the  other.     This  view  is  certainly  entertained 
by  some  without  sufficient  consideration.     But  it  seems  that      ) 
such  an  opinion  is  unsafe,  because  if  Christ  did  indeed  reveal  a      \ 
particular  doctrine,  it  must  surely  be  of  the  utmost  importance      \ 
to  man,  though  it  may  be  less  important  in  itself  than  other  doc-       !, 
trines.     I  do  not  deny  that  we  may,  by  a  sort  of  intuitive  light       ;, 
of  faith,  distinguish  some  doctrines  of  revelation  as  greater  and       | 
more  sublime  than  others  :  but  it  seems  exceedingly  dangerous        | 
to  attempt  by  human  reasoning  to  weigh  the  importance  of       I 
truths  certainly  revealed  by  Christ,  relatively  to  each  other.     It       | 
may  be  possible  that  the  Holy  Spirit  should  so  far  enlighten  the        l 
understanding  of  some  saints,  as  to  enable  them  to  measure 
those  truths  immeasurable  by  human  wisdom  ;  but  a  process  of 


«  [Plainly,  by  confounding  the  abstract  objective  necessity  of  a  doctrine 
with  its  subjective  necessity.] 
P  P.  102. 


136  ON    FUNDAMENTALS.  [p.  I.  CH.  V. 

theological  reasoning  for  this  purpose  seems  scarcely  consistent 
with  the  simplicity  of  faith.     It  constitutes  man  as  it  were  the 
judge  of  his  Creator,  and  it  must  be  impossible  to  the  infinite 
majority  of  men,  because  there  is  a  much  more  practical  and 
important  question  first  to  be  determined  :    What  are  all  the 
doctrines  actually  revealed  by  Christ  ?  Few  men,  perhaps,  have 
completely  mastered  this  question ;    and  yet  it  is  a  necessary 
preliminary  to  any  examination  of  the  relative  importance  of 
doctrines,  because  Christian  doctrines  are  so  concatenated,  that 
without  a  perfect  view  of  all,  it  would  be  impossible  even  to 
attempt  their  comparison.     As  it  has  been  truly  observed  by  an 
eminent  and  excellent  writer :    "  The  sacred  building  is  so  di- 
vinely though  invisibly  cemented,  that  for  aught  we  know,  it  is 
impossible  to  remove  any  portion,  either  of  scriptural  or  tradi- 
tionary truth,  without  weakening  the  whole  arch.   We,  to  whom 
the  whole  is  committed,   .  .  let  us  above  all  things,  beware  of 
the  presumption  of  selecting  for  ourselves  among  the  truths  and 
laws  of  the  Most  High,  which  we  will  retain,  and  which  we  may 
venture  to  dispense  with."'^     WHiatever  foundation  there  may 
be  for  the  notion,  that  some  doctrines  are  more  important  in 
themselves  than  others,  it  cannot  be  supposed  that  any  doctrine 
certainly  revealed  by  Christ  is  unimportant  to  us,  or  that  it  may 
be  safely  disbelieved,  or  that  we  may  recognize  as  Christians 
those  who  obstinately  disbeheve  such  a  doctrine.     If,  indeed, 
there  be  some  special  and  strong  reason,  which  exempts  them 
from  the  imputation  of  pertinacity  in  opposition  to  the  manifest 
truth  ;  or  if  it  be  oxiXy  probable  that  the  doctrine  in  question  was 
revealed  by  Christ,  while  there  is  also  a  probability  that  he  did. 
not  reveal  it ;   in  such  a  case  error  is  tolerable  ;  but  if  there  be 
not  any  such  evident  excuse,  the  denial  of  any  truth  of  faith  or 
morality  revealed  by  Christ  is  heretical,  anti-christian,  and  de- 
structive of  salvation. 

q  Sermon  on  Primitive  Tradition,  by  the  Rev.  J.  Keble,  Professor  of 
Poetry,  p.  4G. 


CHAPTER  VI. 

ON   THE    SANCTITY    OF   THE    CHURCH. 

The  sanctity  of  the  church  may  be  considered  in  several  dif- 
ferent points  of  view.  First,  the  sanctity  of  its  Head,  and  of 
those  who  founded  it ;  secondly,  the  holiness  of  its  doctrine ; 
thirdly,  the  means  of  holiness  which  it  has  in  the  Sacraments  ; 
fourthly,  the  actual  holiness  of  its  members ;  and  fifthly,  the 
divine  attestations  of  holiness  in  miracles. 

1 .  The  Divine  Head  and  Founder  of  the  church  is  the  essen- 
tial origin  and  source  of  all  its  hoKness.  "  He  gave  himself  for 
us,  that  he  might  redeem  us  from  all  iniquity,  and  purify  unto 
himself  a  peculiar  people  zealous  of  good  works."*  The  glori- 
ous efficacy  of  his  sacrifice  procured  the  mission  of  the  Eternal 
Comforter,  the  author  of  every  good  gift,  and  the  source  of  all 
heavenly  grace  in  the  word  and  sacraments  of  Christianity. — 
The  apostles  of  our  Lord  were  commissioned  by  Him,  with  the 
authority  which  he  had  received  from  the  Father,  to  found  the 
Christian  church  ;  and  all  churches  must  therefore  derive  their 
origin  from  the  apostles,  either  by  proving  that  they  were  ori- 
ginally founded  by  the  apostolic  preaching,  and  have  perpetually 
existed  as  societies  from  that  moment  to  the  present ;  or  else 
they  must  be  prepared  to  show  that,  at  their  origin,  they  were 
derived  peaceably  and  with  Christian  charity  from  the  apos- 
tolical churches,  or  that  they  were  subsequently  received  into 
Christian  communion  by  such  churches.  These  are  the  only 
conceivable  ways  in  which  any  church  can  pretend  to  prove 
that  it  was  founded  by  the  apostles  immediately  or  mediately. 
If  any  society  was  not  founded  actually  by  the  apostles,  nor  yet 
founded  by  the  successors  of  the  apostles  and  the  apostolical 


"  Tit.  ii.  14. 
VOL.      I. — 18 


138  SANCTITY    OF    THE    CHURCH.  [pART  I. 

churches,  but  in  the  moment  of  its  birth  separated  itself  from 
the  communion  and  rehgion  of  all  such  churches  ;  if  it  was 
never  received  afterwards,  and  engrafted  into  the  communion  of 
churches,  apostolical  in  their  origin  or  derivation  ;  it  is  impossi- 
ble that  such  a  society  can  in  any  way  show  that  it  was  founded 
by  the  apostles  of  Jesus  Christ.  This  is  a  point  which  may  be 
easily  determined  in  any  particular  case  by  the  facts  of  history, 
and  it  affords  an  excellent  sign  or  test  of  the  church  of  Christ. 

2.  It  is  undeniable  that  the  end  of  Christ's  mission  on  earth 
was  the  sanctification  of  his  people.  He  "  called  us  with  a  holy 
calling.'"'  His  will  is  "  our  sanctification.""  Therefore  if  it 
could  be  clearly  shown  that  any  sonciety  professing  to  be  Chris- 
tian, denied  the  obligation  of  good  works,  and  taught  its  mem- 
bers that  they  might  freely  indulge  in  wickedness,  such  a  society 
would  be  evidently  anathema  from  Jesus  Christ.  Nothing  fur- 
ther could  be  required  to  prove  it. 

3.  The  means  of  sanctity  in  the  sacraments  cannot  with  pro- 
priety be  reckoned  among  the  signs  of  the  church,  for  before 
we  determine  whether  a  society  is  deficient  in'  any  of  these 
means,  we  must  enter  on  the  whole  subject  of  the  sacraments, 
which  would  lead  to  a  discussion  much  too  lengthened,  and 
beyond  the  capacity  of  the  majority  of  men.  Romanists  argue 
that  the  true  and  valid  administration  of  the  sacraments  is  not  a 
note  of  the  church,**  therefore  they  cannot  consistently  enter  on 
the  discussion  of  those  sacraments  as  a  means  of  holiness. 

4.  I  now  come  to  the  question  of  the  actual  holiness  of  the 
members  of  the  church.^  It  is  asserted  by  some  that  a  society 
which  includes  a  number  of  unholy  men  cannot  be  a  church  of 

b  2  Tim.  i.  9.  «  1  Thess.  iv.  3. 

"^  Tournely,  de  Ecclesia,  torn.  i.  p.  63,  &c.  Bailly,  Tractatus  de  Eccl. 
Christ,  torn.  i.  p.  62.  Bouvier,  de  vera  Ecclesia,  p.  79.  Collet,  Inst.  The- 
olog.  Scholast.  torn.  ii.  p.  450. 

^  [The  seeming  paradox  that  unlioly  men  may  be  members  of  a  holy 
church,  and  as  such,  therefore  liohj,  arises  in  great  measure  from  the  ambi- 
guity of  the  terms  "  sanctus,"  "  sanctitus,"  "  holy,"  "  holiness."  Between 
the  ajwT/fc  or  u><«9-i;v«  which  the  Scriptures  and  prunitive  writers  ascribe  to 


CHAP.  VI.]  CHURCH    COMPRISES    SINNERS.  139 

Christ,  that  the  true  church  comprises  only  saints  or  perfect 
Christians,  and  that  sinners  cannot  be  members  of  it.  The 
Novatians  and  Donatists  considered  all  who  were  guilty  of  great 
sins  as  forming  no  part  of  the  church.  The  Pelagians  held  the 
church  to  consist  only  of  perfect  men  free  from  sin.  The 
Wickliffites  taught  that  the  church  includes  only  the  predesti- 
nate. The  Anabaptists  and  the  English  dissenters  asserted, 
that  it  consists  only  of  those  who  are  visibly  holy  in  their  lives ; 
and  the  latter  founded  their  separation  from  the  church  on  the 
principle  that  she  comprised  so  many  sinners  in  her  communion. 
Therefore  they  departed  from  her  to  form  a  pure  society  of 
saints  in  which  no  sinner  was  to  find  place.  Their  whole  sys- 
tem was  founded,  and  continues  to  be  maintained  on  the  fiction 
that  their  communities  are  all  holy,  pure,  perfect  saints,  incapa- 
ble of  passion,  strife,  tyranny,  &c.^  Against  these  principles, 
which  have  mihappily  been  refuted  long  ago  by  experience,  I 
maintain  the  following  position. 

THOSE  WHO  ARE   SINNERS,  AND  DEVOID  OF  LIVELY   FAITH,   ARE 

SOMETIMES  EXTERNALLY  MEMBERS  OF  THE  CHURCH.  '      ' 

This  is  proved  from  Scripture.  Christ  compares  the  church, 
or  kingdom  of  heaven,  to  "  a  field  "  in  which  tares  and  wheat, 
that  is,  evil  men  and  good,  grow  till  the  harvest,  i.  e.  the  end  of 
the  world  (Matt.  xiii.  24—30.  37 — 43) ;  to  "a  net  that  was 
cast  into  the  sea  and  gathered  of  every  kind,"  that  is,  both 
"the  wicked"  and  "the  just"  (xiii.  47—50).  The  church 
is  elsewhere  spoken  of  under  the  figure  of  "  a  wedding  feast,'' 
whereto  the  servants  "  gathered  together  all,  as  many  as  they    '  ! 

. i 

the  visible  church,  and  the  oVwt«c  which  is  the  characteristic  of  its  lively      \ 
members  there  is  a  clear  and  broad  distinction,  never  left  out  of  view.    This 
is  especially  observable  in  the  Epistle  of  Clement  of  Rome  to  the  Corinthi- 
ans.    It  is  to  be  regretted  that  WTiters  on  theology  have  so  often  allowed 
themselves  to  be  entangled  by  the  looser  language  of  the  Western  church 
when  the  precision  of  the  native  language  of  the  church  might  have  saved 
them  from  many  difficulties  and  much  discussion.] 
f  See  Chapter  XIII. 


140  CHURCH  COMPRISES  SINNERS.  [PART  I. 

found,  both  bad  and  good"  (Matt.  xxii.  10);  and  to  "a  great 
house,"  in  which  "  there  are  not  only  vessels  of  gold  and  sil- 
ver, but  also  of  wood  and  earth  ;  and  some  to  honour,  and  some 
to  dishonour"  (2  Tim.  ii.  20).     These  texts  prove  sufficiently, 
that  while  the  church  of  God  exists  on  this  earth,  it  will  comprise 
evil  men  as  well  as  good  in  its  communion  ;  and  accordingly, 
as  we  learn  from  St.  Augustine  in  his  account  of  the  confer- 
ence at   Carthage,  the  Donatists  were  entirely  overcome  by 
them.^     It   is  almost  superfluous  to  add,  that   the    primitive 
church  fully  concurred  with  the  above  principle,  as  might  be 
easily   shown  from  Jerome,  Augustine,   Fulgentius,  Gregory, 
&c.^     As  soon  as  the  Donatist  and  Pelagian  errors  on  this  sub- 
ject were  advanced,  they  were  refuted  by  St.  Jerome  in  his 
book  "  Contra  Pelagianos,"  and  by  St.  Augustine  in  his  books 
against  the  epistles  of  the  Donatists  Parmenianus  and  Petilia- 
nus,  and  in  other  treatises.     The  Lutherans  and  Calvinists  also 
maintained   sound  views  on   this    subject.     The  former   say, 
"We  admit  that  hypocrites  and  evil  men  in  this  hfe  are  joined 
with  the  church,  and  are  members  of  the  church  as  far  as  re- 
lates to  external  participation  in  its  signs,  that  is  the  word,  the 
profession,  and  the  sacraments,   especially  if  they  be  not  ex- 
communicated."'    Calvin  argues  at  great  length,  and  with  his 
usual  energy,  against  the  doctrine  of  the  Anabaptists  and  the 
modern  dissenters.''     He  says,  "  In  the  church  are  many  hy- 


6  August.  Brev.  Coll.  et  Liber  post  Collationem. 

h  Hier.  dial.  adv.  Lucifer,  ultra  medium.  Fulgentius  de  Remiss.  Peccat. 
c.  18.  Gregor.  lib.  2.  in  Ezek.  hom.  iv.  n.  16.  See  Pearson  on  the  Creed, 
art.  ix.  Field,  Of  the  Church,  book  i.  ch.  16,  17,  18. 

Apologia  Confessionis  August,  iv.  de  Ecclesia.  See  also  the  Confes- 
sion of  Augsburg,  art.  viii.  The  Formula  Concordia;,  another  Lutheran 
Confession,  "  rejects  and  condemns"  amongst  the  "  Errores  Anabaptista- 
rum  "  this  ;  "  Non  esse  earn  veram  et  Christianam  Ecclesiam,  in  qua  pec- 
catores  reperiantur."  (Form.  Cone.  pars.  ii.  ad  fin.)  The  Sax.  Conf. 
(art.  xii.)  says,  "  Improbamus  et  colluviem  Anabaptisticam,  qua;  finxit  ec- 
clesiam visibilem,  in  qua  omnes  sint  sancti." 

k  Calvin.  Institut.  lib.  iv.  c.  i.  sect.  13 — 29. 


» 


CHAP.  VI.]  MANIFEST    SINNERS  IN  THE  CHURCH.  141 

pocrites  mixed,  who  have  nothing  of  Christ  except  the  name 
and  appearance  :  many  ambitious,  covetous,  envious,  slander- 
ing men ;  some  of  impure  hfe,  who  are  tolerated  for  a  time, 
either  because  they  cannot  be  convicted  by  a  lawful  judgment, 
or  because  due  severity  of  discipline  is  not  always  in  force."' 

But  the  Donatists  discovered  a  distinction  which  has  been 
adopted  by  the  more  modern  sects.  They  admitted  that  sin- 
ners might  indeed  exist  in  communion  with  the  church,  but 
they  denied  that  open  and  manifest  sinners  could  in  any  respect 
be  of  the  church.  In  reply  to  this  distinction  I  proceed  to 
show,  that,  ; 

MANIFEST  SINNERS  ARE   SOMETIMES    EXTERNALLY    MEMBERS   OF 
THE  CHURCH,  AND  EXERCISE  THE  PRIVILEGE  OF  ITS  MEMBERS. 

St.  Paul,  in  his  epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  styles  them  "  the 
church  of  God  which  is  at  Corinth"  (1  Cor.  i.  2) ;  yet  in  this 
church  of  God  "  were  envying,  and  strife,  and  divisions  "  (iii. 
3) ;  "  Going  to  law  against  each  other,"  and  that  "  before  the 
heathen"  (vi.  1.  6,  7) ;  and  even  "fornication,  such  is  not  so 
much  as  named  among  the  Gentiles "  (v.  i).  Tins  clearly 
proves  that  manifest  sinners  are  sometimes  found  in  the  church, 
for  the  person  last  alluded  to  was  not  separated  from  the  church 
of  Corinth,  until  the  apostle  had  rebuked  them,  and  command- 
ed him  to  be  delivered  to  Satan  (v.  5) ;  yet  the  Corinthian 
church  is  not  considered  by  the  apostle  to  have  been  apostate, 
because  this  sinner  was  in  their  communion.  The  same  is 
proved  by  the  words  to  "  the  church  in  Thyatira." — "  I  have  a 
few  things  against  thee,  because  thou  sufferest  that  woman  Jeze- 
bel, which  calleth  herself  a  prophetess,  to  teach  and  seduce  my 
servants  to  commit  fornication,   and  to  eat  things  sacrificed  to 

'  Ibid.  sect.  7.  The  same  doctrine  is  taught  by  the  Tetrapolitan  Con- 
fession, in  which  it  is  said,  that  "  many  will  be  mixed  in  the  church  even 
to  the  end  of  the  world,  who  do  not  really  believe  in  Christ,  but  pretend  to 
do  so"  (cap.  XV.).  It  is  also  taught  by  the  Helvetic  Confession  (cap. 
xvii.),  the  Gallican  (xxvii.),  the  Bohemian  (art.  viii.). 


142  MANIFEST  SINKERS  IN  THE    CHURCH.  [PART  I. 

idols"  (Rev.  ii.  18.  20),  And  to  the  ''Church  in  gardis,"  it 
is  said,  "thou  hast  a/ew;  names,  even  in  Sardis,  which  have 
not  defiled  their  garments"  (Rev.  iii.  1.4).  In  both  of  these 
churches  it  is  m'anifest  that  there  were  great  and  glaring  offen- 
ces. It  is  further  proved,  by  the  parable  of  the  evil  servant, 
whom  his  Lord  made  ruler,  and  who  "shall  begin  to  smite  his 
fellow-servants,  and  to  eat  and  drink  with  the  drunken"  (Matt, 
xxiv.  45 — 51) ;  for  this  parable  refers  to  evil  pastors  in  Christ's 
church,  who  are  represented  in  possession  of  authority  over 
the  church,  and  in  its  external  communion,  while  they  are 
guilty  of  gross  sins  :  it  is  thus  interpreted  by  Hilary,  Jerome, 
and  Chrysostom.  The  mere  fact  then,  that  there  are  known 
sinners  in  any  church,  does  not  annihilate  its  character,  render 
it  apostate,  or  deprive  it  of  the  rights  which  belong  to  it  by  di- 
vine institution.  Nor  does  an  improper  delay  in  expelling  the 
offenders,  as  appears  by  the  case  of  the  churches  of  Corinth, 
Thyatira,  and  Sardis.  Such  faults  and  defects  of  discipline 
are  found  in  every  society  of  Christians  alike.  Thus  the  dis- 
senters, in  describing  their  system  say  ;  "  A  much  greater  evil, 
however,  is  to  be  found  in  the  retaining  of  persons  as  church- 
memhers,  when  their  character  plainly  unfits  them  for  sucli  a 
station.  Instances  have  not  been  wanting,  in  which  persons  of 
NOTORIOUS  IMMORALITY,  such  as  habitual  drunkards,  and  others, 
have  remained  in  undisturbed  possession  of  their  membership  ; 
while,  in  other  cases,  there  has  been  manifested  a  considerable 
unwillingness  to  inquire  into  accusations,  to  bring  faults  to  light, 
and  to  act  with  consistency  and  decision  upon  them  when 
proved."™  "  Our  character,"  they  say,  "  as  professors,  has  not 
been  duly  distinct  from  that  of  the  world  around  us  ;  to  say 
nothing  of  occasional  (but  too  frequent)  instances  of  immora- 
lity, to  say  nothing  even  of  habitual  faults  far  short  of  immo- 
rality, there  is  between  the  world  and  the  congregational 
churches  (in  common  we  admit,  but  with  no  pleasure,  with  the 

»  Essays  on  Church  Polity,  vol.  ii.  p.  185. 


CHAP.  VI.]  MANIFEST  SINNERS  IN  THE  CHURCH.  143 

bulk  of  Other    communities,)   far  too   small   a  difference  of 
level."'^ 

Notwithstanding  this,  it  is  clear,  that  such  defects  of  disci- 
pline in  their  own  communities,  are  tolerated  with  great  charity 
by  the  dissenters.  They  hold  communion  and  intercourse 
with  societies  in  which  discipline  is  thus  relaxed,  and  acknow- 
ledge their  Christian  character ;  nor  does  it  appear  that  any 
inquiry  is  ever  instituted  as  to  the  state  of  particular  societies, 
to  ascertain  their  conduct  in  this  respect,  or  that  any  of  them 
are  ever  rejected  by  the  rest,  in  consequence  of  a  defective 
discipline.  By  no  means  :  they  can  make  allowance  for  the 
difficulties  of  the  case,  and  are  unwilling  to  condemn  the  good 
with  the  evil.  We  have  only  to  regret,  for  their  sakes,  that  the 
same  rule  of  charity  has  never  been  extended  to  the  church,  by 
the  dissenters  and  their  predecessors  ;  and  that  a  laxity,  which 
is  excused  in  the  case  of  those  who  profess  to  be  all  saints,  is 
viewed  as  an  abomination  in  the  case  of  those  who  admit  that 
there  must  always  be  sinners  among  them. 

That  the  ungodly,  whether  secret  or  manifest,  do  not  really 
belong  to  the  church,  considered  as  to  its  invisible  character, — 
namely,  as  consisting  of  its  essential  and  permanent  members, 
the  elect,  predestinate,  and  sanctified,  who  are  known  to  God 
only,  I  admit.     It  is  also  certain,   tli.at    "  if  any  man  that  is 
called  a  brother,  be  a  fornicator,  or  covetous,  or  an  idolater,  or 
a  railer,  or  a  drunkard,  or  an  extortioner,"  with  such  a  one,  we 
are  "not  to  keep  company,  or  even  to  eat"  (1  Cor.  v.  11). 
His  society  is  to  be  abstained  from  by  the  faithful,  and  he  ought 
to  be  separated  from  the  church.     But  I  deny  that  such  men 
cease  to  belong  externally  to  the  church,  until  they  are  excom- 
municated,    for  otherwise  excommunication  would  be  a  mere 
nullity,)  or  until  they  withdraw  themselves  from  the  church  by 
some  formal  act  of  separation. 

It  is  further  contended  by  dissenters,  that  none  but  those  who 
are  visibly  holy  in  their  lives,  can  lawfully  be  admitted  into  the 
church.     In  opposition  to  this  principle,  I  affirm  that 

n  Essays  on  Church  Polity,  vol.  ii.  p.  188, 


144  CHURCH  ADMITS   SINNERS.  [PART  I 

VISIBLE  SANCTITY  OF  LIFE  IS   NOT  REQUISITE   FOR  ADMISSION 
TO  THE  CHURCH  OF  CHRIST. 

First,  the  gospel  was  preached  to  pubhcans,  harlots,  sinners 
of  all  kinds,  who  were  invited  to  repent  and  be  baptized,  and 
wash  away  their  sins.  After  St.  Peter  had  spoken,  three  thou- 
sand souls  were  at  once  baptized,  and  added  to  the  church  (Acts 
ii.  41.  47).  Philip  baptized  the  eunuch,  on  his  simply  profess- 
ing his  faith  (Acts  viii.  37,  38).  Therefore  a  profession  of 
repentance  and  faith  in  Christ,  of  willingness  to  obey  his  laws, 
and  believe  his  words  is  a  sufficient  condition  (5f  baptism,  unless 
there  be  some  evident  proof,  at  the  same  time,  that  the  profes- 
sion is  hypocritical. 

Secondly,  the  Scriptures  and  the  universal  church  appoint 
only  one  mode  in  which  Christians  are  to  be  made  members  of 
the  church.  It  is  baptism  which  renders  us,  by  divine  right, 
members  of  the  church,  and  entitles  us  to  all  the  privileges  of 
the  faithful  :  "  For  as  many  of  you  as  have  been  baptized  into 
Christ,  have  put  on  Christ"  ...  "Ye  are  all  one  in  Christ 
Jesus"  (Gal.  iii.  27,  28).  Tf  baptism  therefore  makes  men 
members  of  Christ,  or  clothes  them  with  Christ,  it  follows  ne- 
cessarily that  they  must  have,  at  once,  a  right  to  all  the  privi- 
leges of  that  part  of  the  church  in  which  they  abide.  It  is  admit- 
ted by  those  dissenters  who  allow  the  validity  of  infant  baptism, 
that  "  it  giveth  them  all  the  external  rights  and  privileges  which 
belong  unto  them  that  are  regenerate,  until  they  come  to  such 
seasons,  wherein  the  personal  performance  of  those  duties, 
whereon  the  continuation  of  the  estate  of  visible  regeneration 
doth  depend  is  required  of  them."*^  Since  baptism  therefore 
gives  infants  the  external  rights  of  the  regenerate,  those  rights 
must  still  remain  ;  (for  it  is  absurd  to  suppose  that  the  develop- 
ment of  reason  alone,  should  dejyj'ive  them  of  them  ;)  and  con- 
sequently, at  the  age  of  reason,  every  baptized  Cliristian  has  a 
rifrJit  to  all  the  external   and  general  privileges  of  the  cliurch 


°  Owen's  Gospel  Church,  p.  28. 


CHAP.  VI.]      MIRACULOUS  ATTESTATIONS  OF  SANCTITY.  145 

instituted  by  Christ  Jesus.  Therefore  it  is  contrary  to  sound 
doctrine,  to  institute  any  rite  or  ceremony,  by  which  it  is  then 
pretended  to  make  him  a  member  of  the  church,  as  dissenters 
do.P  If  he  be  found  guilty  of  scandalous  offences,  it  is  proper 
and  right  to  suspend  him  from  church  communion  ;  but  other- 
wise as  a  baptized  Christian,  he  has  a  divine  right  to  every  ex- 
ternal privilege  of  the  church.     (See  Chapter  XIII.) 

5.  We  are  now  to  consider  the  question  of  miracles,  as 
divine  attestations  of  sanctity.  It  is  needless  to  say,  that 
Romanists  are  fond  of  arguing,  that  the  performance  of  mira- 
cles is  a  sign  of  the  true  church,  as  it  evinces  the  sanctity  and 
orthodoxy  of  those  who  work  them.  The  stupendous  physical 
and  moral  miracles  on  which  the  truth  bf  Christianity  is  based, 
are  indeed  beyond  doubt,  and  irrefragably  true  :  they  stand 
alone,  and  demonstrate  the  divine  mission  of  those  who  per- 
formed them.  But  the  Revelation,  which  is  based  on  these 
miracles  tells  us,  that  there  should  afterwards  arise  workers  of 
miracles,  "  of  great  signs  and  wonders,'"!  ^fho,  far  from  being 
orthodox,  or  holy  men,  should  be  the  agents  of  the  Evil  one. 
They  tell  us,  that  at  the  day  of  judgment,  some  of  those  who 
have  "  done  many  wonderful  works,"  in  Christ's  name,  shall 
be  condemned  ;>■  that  though  we  should  speak  with  tongues, 
cast  out  devils,  raise  the  dead,  and  yet  be  destitute  of  charity, 
it  shall  profit  us  nothing.^     It  is  clear  then,   that   signs  and 


p  Dissenters  are  obliged  to  confess  that  their  mode  of  admitting  people 
into  the  church  is  not  mentioned  in  the  Bible.  "■  The  manner,"  they  say, 
*'  of  admitting  members  to  this  church,  is  not  indeed  precisely  stated  in  the 
sacred  records." — Essays  on  Ch.  Polity,  vol.  ii.  p.  383.  If  this  be  so,  the 
Scriptures  cannot  afford  that  exclusive  guidance  in  matters  of  discipline, 
which  the  dissenters  contend  for.  Surely  "  the  admission  of  members  "  to 
the  church,  is  one  of  the  most  practically  important  matters  affecting  it ; 
if  this  be  not  exactly  detailed  in  scripture,  it  cannot  be  expected  that  all 
the  forms  of  government,  rites,  &c.  should  :  and  in  that  case,  what  be- 
comes of  the  accusations  against  the  Church,  as  guilty  of  adding  to  scrip- 
ture ;  and  what  becomes  of  the  duty  of  separating  from  her  on  this  account  ? 

q  Matt.  xxiv.  24.     Mark  xiii.  32. 

li  Matt.  viL  22.  M  Cor.  xiii.  ],2. 

VOL.   I. 19 


146        MIRACULOUS  ATTESTATIONS  OF  SANCTITY.   [PART  I. 

wonders  are,  since  the  Christian  Revelation,  not  necessarily 
proofs  of  sanctity ;  and  moreover,  it  is  obviously  the  duty  of 
Christians  to  look  with  jealousy  on  all  pretended  miracles. 

Even  amongst  Romanists  it  does  not  seem  that  signs  and 
wonders  alone,  are  universally  judged  a  sufficient  proof  of 
perfect  sanctity.  Christianus  Lupus  says,  that  "not  every  sort 
of  sanctity  is  sufficient  for  canonization,  even  though  it  be  dis- 
tinguished by  miracles ;  but  it  should  also  be  eminent,  and  free 
from  any  ill  fame.''''  As  an  instance,  he  adduces  the  case  of 
Robert,  bishop  of  Lincoln,  who  Had  opposed  the  Roman  pontiff, 
Lniocentius  ;  for  which  cause,  says  Knighton,  "  though  Robert 
w^as  resplendent  with  manifest  miracles,  he  was  not  permitted 
to  be  canonized  ;"  and  Matthew  Paris  adds,  that  Sewallus, 
archbishop  of  York,  who  was  excommunicated  by  Alexander 
IV.  "  performed  miracles  on  his  death-bed."'  Baillet  observes, 
that  "  men  who  are  shining  with  miracles  and  sanctity,"  are 
sometimes  not  placed  in  the  catalogue  of  Roman  Saints,  be- 
cause they  have  troubled  the  Roman  court,  or  in  some  manner 
given  scandal."^ 

It  is  acknowledged  by  the  Jesuit  Salmeron,  that  miracles 
may  be  done  by  a  false  church.  Espencgeus,  another  Roman 
theologian,  says,  that  "miracles  are  common  to  God  and  to 
the  devil,  to  Christ  and  to  Antichrist."^  It  is  admitted  by  the 
fathers,  Irenaeus,  Origen,  Cyprian,  and  Augustine,  that  heretics 
wrought  signs  and  wonders,  and  this  is  not  denied  even  by 
Romanists  ;*  They  have  been  wrought  in  profusion  by  the 
Jansenists  ;''  and  they  are  pretended  to  not  only  by  the  Roman 
churches,  but  by  the  Oriental,''  the  Nestorians  and  Eutychians, 

t  Tom.  iii.  Sc-hol.  in  Can.  p.  571,  quoted  by  Van  Espen,  Jus  Canonicum, 
pars  i.  tit.  xxii.  c.  vii.  sect.  7. 

u  Baillet,  praefat.  ad  Vitas  Sanctorum,  n.  90.  cited  by  Van  Espen,  ibid. 

V  Espencaeus  in  2  ad  Tim. 

w  Tournely,  de  Ecclesia,  torn.  i.  p.  153.  See  also,  "  A  brief  Discourse 
concerning  the  Notes  of  the  Church,"  p.  261 — 264.  ed.  London,  1688. 

*  See  Chapter  XI.  section  iii. 

y  See  Nectarii  Hierosol.  Confutatio  Imperii  Papae,  pp.  306.  337.  321 — 


CHAP.  VI.]        MIRACULOUS  ATTESTATIONS  OF  SANCTITY,  147 

the  Hugonot  prophets,  the  Irvingites,  and  sundry  other  sects. 
It  is  in  vain  for  Romanists  to  pretend,  that  their  miracles 
alone  are  authentic,  or  that  they  alone  merit  examination. 
This  is  a  mere  assumption,  which  is  by  no  means  founded  in 
truth. 

But  further :  the  performance  of  miracles  is  not  essential  to 
real  sanctity.  It  will  not  surely  be  pretended,  even  by  Roman- 
ists, that  all  those  who  are  honoured  by  the  church  as  saints, 
must  have  wrought  miracles  ;  such  a  condition  would  be  most 
highly  inconvenient.  It  would  be  difficult  to  prove  that  Ana- 
cletus,  and  the  other  early  bishops  of  Rome,  who  are  accounted 
saints,  wrought  any  miracles ;  and  the  same  may  be  said  of 
St.  Dionysius  of  Corinth,  Clement  of  Alexandria,  the  two 
Dionysii  of  Alexandria  and  Rome,  Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  Epi- 
phanius,  Alexander  of  Constantinople,  Damasus,  Amphilochius, 
Basil,  Gregory  of  Nazianzum,  Isidore  of  Nitria,  Meletius, 
Optatus,  &c.  &c.  Tillemont  and  Fleury,  who  mention  the 
miracles  of  the  Saints  wherever  there  is  any  evidence  for  them, 
appear  to  be  silent  as  to  any  wrought  by  these  holy  men.  I 
can  only  allude  in  general  to  the  multitude  of  martyrs  and  con- 
fessors who  constitute  almost  the  whole  mass  of  the  ancient 
saints,  and  scarcely  any  of  whom  appear  to  have  wrought 
miracles.  History  records  the  miracles  of  some  individuals, 
but  the  great  majority  of  the  saints  were  only  remarkable  for 
holiness  of  life,  zeal  for  the  faith,  confession,  or  martyrdom. 

Tillemont  observes,  in  his  notice  of  St.  Gregory  Thauma- 
turgus,  that  "  there  are  very  few  saints  in  whom  God  had  united 
the  external  talents  of  eloquence  and  knowledge  with  the  grace 
of  prophecy  and  miracles  ;"  and  in  his  life  of  St.  Basil  he  says, 
that  "  God,  not  willing  that  man  should  judge  of  the  virtue 
of  the  saints  by  miracles,  which  he  seems  to  have  reserved  for 
the  defence  of  his  truth  and  of  his  church,  rather  than  for  the 
glory  of  his  servants,  did  not  grant  this  gift  to  those  saints 

332  (ed.  Lond.  1732),  where  a  multitude  of  signs  and  wonders  are  claimed 
for  the  Oriental  Church. 


14;8  MIKACTJLOUS  ATTESTATIONS  OF  SANCTITY.        [PART  I. 

whose  virtue  was  without  dispute  the  most  eminent  and  the 
most  solid.  We  observe  this  in  St.  Cyprian,  St.  Athanasius, 
St.  Jerome,  St.  Augustine,  and  in  the  other  great  saints  of  the 
principal  ages  of  the  church,  in  whom  we  find  but  rarely,  or  not 
at  all,  extraordinary  and  miraculous  actions.  Their  life  alone 
was  a  greater  miracle  than  any  that  they  could  have  per- 
formed." (Hist.  Eccl.  torn.  ix.  p.  24.) 

It  is  also  to  be  observed,  that  God  has  not  made  any  promise 
of  miracles  to  his  church  at  all  times.  True,  miracles  were 
promised  to  the  disciples,  but  they  were  not  promised  "for 
ever,"  like  the  Spirit  of  Truth.  Accordingly,  M.  Bouvier, 
now  bishop  of  Mans,  says,  after  Cardmal  de  la  Luzerne, 
"  Whether  God  will  exhibit  such  divine  signs  of  sanctity  in  his 
church  perpetually,  we  dare  not  define  ;  nor  therefore  do  we 
affirm,  that  sanctity  thus  understood,  is  essentially  a  positive 
note  of  the  true  church."^  This  is  most  reasonable  ;  and,  at 
all  events,  no  one  can  pretend  that  miracles  were  promised 
always  \o 'particular  churches. 

In  conclusion,  then,  it  may  be  said,  that  the  question  of 
miracles  cannot,  with  propriety,  enter  into  the  notes  of  the 
true  church.  It  involves  too  extensive  inquiries  into  the  preten- 
sions of  various  communities  ;  and  after  all,  if  the  performance 
of  signs  and  wonders  were  proved,  they  would  not  necessarily 
establish  the  sanctity  of  those  who  wrought  them,  while  sanc- 
tity may  exist  without  any  such  signs.  God  may  surely  cm- 
ploy  sinners  to  perform  great  works,  (as  in  the  case  of  Balaam,) 
or  permit  the  devil  to  deceive  evil  men  through  their  means. 
Far  be  it  from  me  to  affirm  that  real  miracles  have  not  been 
wrought  since  the  time  of  the  apostles,  for  the  confirmation  of 
Christians,  and  especially  for  the  conversion  of  the  heathen. 
There  is  every  probability,  nay,  certainty,  that  such  signs  have 

^  "  An  vero  Deus  divina  hujusmodi  signa  sanctitatis  in  ecclesia  sua  per- 
petuo  exhibere  teneatur,  dcfiniri  non  audemus,  nee  idcirco  adfirmamus  sanc- 
titatem,  ita  intellectam,  essentialiter  esse  notam  verae  ecclesiae  positivam. 
Sic  ferme  'de  la  Luzerne,  Dissertation  sur  les  Eglises  Catholiques  et 
Protestantes,  t.  2.'  " — Bouvier,  Tractatus  de  vera  Ecclesia,  p.  103. 


CHAP.  VI,]        SANCTITY  OF  THE  CHURCH.  149 

been  wrought ;  but  we  ought  not,  I  contend,  to  examine  them 
with  a  view  to  discover  the  true  church  ;  more  especially  as  it 
does  not  appear,  that  any  of  those  miracles  which  have  the 
slightest  pretension  to  credibility,  were  wrought  to  determine 
controversies  of  faith  or  discipline  between  the  existing  com- 
munities of  professing  Christians. 

OBJECTIONS. 

I.  The  church  can  only  comprise  perfectly  holy  men ;  for 
Christ  gave  himself  for  the  church,  "  that  he  might  present  it 
to  himself  a  glorious  church,  not  having  spot  or  wrinkle,  or  any 
such  thing  ;  but  that  it  should  be  holy  and  without  blemish  " 
(Eph.  V.  27). 

Ansiver.  The  church  is  here  spoken  of,  as  consisting  of  those  • 
who  alone  are  its  essential  and  permanent  members,  and  who 
are  known  to  God  only ;  but  this  does  not  infer,  that  there  may 
not  also  be  men  who  are  only  imperfectly  members,  but  who 
are,  together  with  the  righteous,  in  the  external  communion  of 
the  church.  - 

II.  According  to  Christ's  will,  none  but  saints  and  the 
regenerate  ought  to  be  admitted  into  the  church,  therefore 
those  who  are  not  saints,  cease  to  be  members  of  it. 

Answer.  (1.)  I  deny  that  none  but  visible  saints  are  to  be 
admitted  into  the  church,  as  I  have  before  proved.  (2.)  As- 
suming that  visible  saints  only  are  admitted,  yet  their  sanctity 
alone  does  not  make  them  members  of  the  church.  They 
must  be  admitted  by  the  ministry  of  others  ;  and  so,  in  like  ' 
manner,  their  departure  from  visible  sanctity  does  not,  ipso 
facto,  deprive  them  of  external  church-membership,  but  they 
must  be  separated  by  others,  or  by  a  formal  act  of  their  own. 

III.  The  reformers  held  the  church  to  consist  only  of  the 
elect  and  holy.  For  instance,  the  Confession  of  Augsburgh 
(Art.  vii.) 

Ansiver.  They  only  meant  the  church  considered  in  its  per- 
manent, internal,  perfect  cl,]aracter ;  for  they  admitted,  in  the 
Apology  of  the  Confession,  that  the  church  comprises  both 
righteous  and  sinners  in  her  external  communion. 


CHAPTER  VII. 

ON   THE  UNIVERSALITY    OF    THE    CHURCH. 

Universality,  of  course,  could  not  have  been  a  characteristic 
of  the  church  at  its  commencement,  when  it  only  existed  at 
Jerusalem ;  but  the  testimony  of  Scripture  and  history,  and 
general  opinion,  oblige  us  to  believe,  that  it  was  afterwards  to 
become  universal,  and  to  remain  so  always.  It  is  not  necessary 
for  us  to  suppose  a  physical  and  absolute  universality,  including 
all  men :  this  would  be  inconsistent  with  the  predictions  of  the 
existence  of  antichristian  powers.  All  that  is  here  contended 
is,  that  the  church  was  to  possess  moral  universality,  to  obtain 
adherents  in  all  the  nations  of  the  world  then  known,  and  to 
extend  its  limits  in  proportion  as  new  nations  and  countries 
were  discovered  :  and  that  it  was  never  to  be  reduced  again  to 
a  small  portion  of  the  world,  though  always  subject  to  persecu- 
tions, fluctuations,  and  losses. 

1 .  I  argue  from  Scripture,  that  the  Church  was  to  be  moral- 
ly universal,  or  to  be  propagated  in  all  nations.  The  pro 
phecies  relating  to  the  kingdom  of  Christ  all  express  this  charac- 
ter :  "  In  thy  seed  shall  all  the  nations  of  the  earth  be  blessed" 
(Gen.  xxii.  18.  xxvi.  4.  xxviii.  14);  "In  the  last  days  the 
mountain  of  the  Lord's  house  shall  be  established  in  the  top  of 
the  mountains,  and  shall  be  exalted  above  the  hills,  and  all 
nations  shall  flow  imto  it"  (Is.  ii.  2)  ;  "Israel  shall  blossom 
andbi\d,  and  fill  the /ace  of  the  world  with  fruit"  (Is.  xxvii.  6) ; 
"1  will  also  give  thee  for  a  light  to  the  Gentiles,  that  thou 
mayest  be  my  salvation  unto  the  end  of  the  earth  "  (xlix.  6) ; 
"  Ask  of  me,  and  I  will  give  thee  the  heathen  for  thine  inheri- 
tance, and  the  uttermost  parts  of  the  earth  for  thy  possession  " 
(Ps.  ii.  8);  "All  the  ends  of  the  porld  shall  remember  and 
turn  unto  the  Lord,  and  all  the  kindreds  of  the  nations  shall 


CHAP.    VII.]  UNIVERSALITY    OF    THE    CHURCH.  151 

worship  before  thee  "  (Ps.  xxii.  27) ;  "  He  shall  have  dominion 
from  sea  to  sea,  and  from  the  river  unto  the  ends  of  the  earth  " 
(Ps.  Ixxii.  8)  ;  "  His  name  shall  endure  for  ever :  his  name 
shall  be  continued  as  long  as  the  sun ;  and  men  shall 
be  blessed  in  him :  all  nations  shall  call  him  blessed " 
(verse  17). 

Our  blessed  Saviour  himself  referred  to  these  prophecies,  in 
his  discourse  with  his  disciples  after  his  resurrection,  saying  : 
"  Thus  it  is  written,  and  thus  it  behoved  Christ  to  suffer  .... 
and  that  repentance  and  remission  of  sins  should  be  preached 
in  his  name  among  all  iiations,  beginning  at  Jerusalem" 
(Luke  xxiv.  47) ;  he  also  declared  that  his  disciples  should  be 
witnesses  to  him  "unto  the  uttermost  part  of  the  earth" 
(Acts  i.  8),  and  commanded  them  to  "go  teach  all  nations,^ 
promising  his  presence  with  them  "  always,  even  unto  the 
end  of  the  world  "  (Matt,  xxviii.  19,  20).  We  find  accordingly, 
that  the  apostles  "  went  forth  and  preached  every  ivhere " 
(Mark  xvi.  20).  As  St.  Paul  says,  "  their  sound  went  into  all 
the  earth,  and  their  words  U7ito  the  end  of  the  world  "  (Rom.  x. 
18) ;  therefore,  even  in  the  lifetime  of  the  apostles,  the  church 
was  universal,  and  the  prophecies  of  its  diffusiveness  were 
already  fulfilled. 

Now,  since  all  these  predictions  were  delivered  without  any 
exception  or  limitation  as  to  time,  we  are  bound  to  infer,  that 
they  are  intended  to  describe  the  permanent  condition  of  the 
Christian  church.  The  character  of  Christianity  as  described 
by  the  prophets,  is  always  universality .  They  never  contem- 
plate any  failure  or  overthrow  :  they  never  announce  the  virtual 
extinction  of  Christianity  at  any  future  time,  or  its  reduction  to 
narrow  and  insignificant  limits. 

That  the  church  was  not  to  fail  is  naturally  inferred  from  the 
promise  of  Christ  himself :  "  On  this  rock  I  will  build  my 
church,  and  the  gates  of  hell  shall  not  prevail  against  it" 
(Matt.  xvi.  18).  It  is  also  inferred  from  that  parable,  where 
the  kingdom  of  God  is  compared  to  a  grain  of  mustard-seed, 
which,  when  it  is  sown  in  the  earth,  is  less  than  all  the  seeds 


152  UNIVERSALITY  OF  THE    CHURCH.  [PART    I. 

that  be  in  the  earth  ;  but  when  it  is  sown,  it  groweth  up,  and 
becometh  greater  than  all  herbs,  and  shootelh  out  great  branch- 
es ;  so  that  the  fowls  of  the  air  may  lodge  under  the  shadow  of 
it"  (Mark  iv.  31,  32).  Such  is  the  greatness  of  the  church  of 
Christ,  which  is  represented  as  its  proper  characteristic,  and 
therefore  cannot  be  lost. 

2.  The  primitive  church  always  understood  the  prophecies 
relating  to  the  universality  of  Christianity,  as  descriptive  of  its 
permanent  condition  ;  for  we  find  the  fathers  not  merely  assert- 
ing the  fact,  that  the  church  of  Christ  was  really  diffused 
throughout  the  whole  world ;  but  arguing,  that  the  church  of 
which  they  were  members  must  be  the  true  church,  because  it 
was  so  diffused,  and  that  the  societies  of  heretics  which  claimed 
to  be  the  only  true  church,  could  not  be  so,  from  their  deficiency 
in  this  essential  characteristic. 

Thus,  St.  Alhanasius  and  the  bishops  of  the  Alexandrian 
patriarchate,  writing  to  the  Emperor  Jovian,  argue  for  their 
own  profession  of  the  true  faith  and  the  true  church,  from  the 
universality  of  their  communion,  and  the  insignificant  numbers 
of  the  Arian  party. ^  Jerome,  arguing  against  the  Luciferians, 
says  :  "  If  Christ  has  not  a  church,  or  has  one  only  in  Sardinia, 
he  has  become  greatly  impoverished.  And  if  Satan  possesses 
Britain,  Gaul,  the  East,  India,  the  barbarous  nations,  the  whole 
world,  how  were  the  trophies  of  the  cross  given  to  a  mere  cor- 
ner of  the  world.'"*  Oplatus  argues  thus  :  "  Thou  hast  said, 
brother  Parmenianus,  that  the  church  is  only  amongst  you  .  . . 
Therefore  that  it  may  exist  with  you  in  a  part  of  Africa,  a 
corner  of  a  small  region,  it  must  not  be  amongst  us  in  the  other 
part  of  Africa,  nor  in  Spain,  Italy,  Gaul,  where  you  are  not,  .  . 
nor  among  the  innumerable  islands  and  other  provinces  which 

:>  Theodoret.  Hist.  Eccl.  lib.  iv.  c.  3. 

'*  "  Si  ecclesiam  non  habet  Christus,  aut  si  in  Sardinia  tantum  habet, 
niraium  pauper  factus  est.  Et  si  Britannias,  Gallias,  Orientem,  Indorum 
populos,  barbaras  nationes,  et  totem  semcl  mundum  possidet  Satanas ;  quo- 
modo  ad  angulum  universee  tcrrse  crusia  trophwa  colLata  sunt.'' — Ilior.  adv. 
LuciferianoS;  torn.  iv.  pars  2.  p.  298.  ed.  13cn. 


CHAP.    Vir.]  UNIVERSALITY    OP    THE    CHURCH.  153 

can  scarcely  be  counted.  Where  then  is  the  propriety  of  the 
name  of  cathohc,  since  the  church  is  called  catholic  because  it 
is  reasonable,  and  diffused  everywhere  ?"'^  Augustine  says  : 
"  We  hold  the  inheritance  of  Christ ;  they  (the  heretics)  do 
not  hold  it :  they  do  not  communicate  with  the  whole  world, 
they  do  not  {i.  e.  refuse  to)  communicate  with  the  whole  com- 
munity redeemed  by  the  blood  of  the  Lord."'*  Augustine  cites 
almost  all  the  passages  ef  Scripture  adduced  above, **  in  his 
book  "  de  Unitate  Ecclesis,"  against  the  Donatists,  to  prove 
that  the  church  is  essentially  universal.  In  fine,  the  ancient 
church  considered  universality  as  one  essential  characteristic  of 
the  church,  for  the  creed  approved  by  the  General  Council  of 
Nice,  as  the  confession  of  faith  of  the  whole  world,  professes 
behef  in  a  "  catholic"  (or  universal)  "  apostolic  church."*' 

3.  In  fact,  the  universality  of  the  church  is  generally  admit- 
ted. The  Nicene  and  the  Apostles'  Creeds  are  received  by 
the  Eastern  church,  and  by  the  Roman  churches,  as  well  as  by 
all  the  Reformation,  and  they  both  contain  a  profession  of 
belief  in  the  "  holy  catholic  "  (or  universal)  "  church."  Hence 
all  these  societies  continually  profess  their  belief  in  the  univer- 
sahty  of  the  church.  The  hymn,  "  Te  Deum,"  which  is  also 
generally  used  by  them,  recognizes  the  same — "  The  holy 
church  throughout  all  the  world  doth  acknowledge  thee." 

Its  catholicity  is  also  expressly  admitted  by  the  confession  of 

'^  "  Earn  tu,  frater  Parmeniane,  apud  vos  solos  esse  dixisti  ....  Ergo 
ut  in  particula  Africa3,  in  angulo  parvae  regionis,  apud  vos  esse  possit ;  apud 
nos  in  alia  parte  Africse  non  erit.    In  Hispaniis,  in  Italia,  in  Gallia,  ubi  vos 

non  estis,  noh  erit,  &c Et  per  tot  innumerabiles  insulas  et  ceeteras 

provincias,  quae  numerari  vix  possunt,  ubi  vos  non  estis,  non  erit.  Ubi 
ergo  proprietas  catholici  nominis,  cum  inde  dicta  sit  catholica,  quod  sit 
rationabUis  et  ubique  diffusa  7  " — Optatus,  liber  ii.  de  schismate  Donatist. 
p.  28.  ed.  Du  Pin. 

(1  "  Tenemus  haereditatem  Domini :  illi  eam  non  tenent  :  non  commu- 
nicant orbi  terrarum,  non  communicant  universitati  redemt*  sanguine 
Domini."— Tract,  iii.  in  Epist.  Johan.  p.  846.  tom.  iii.  opcr  ed.  Bened. 

'  Tom.  ix.  p.  337,  &c.  ed.  Bened. 

'  Socrates,  Hist.  Eccl.  lib.  i.  c.  viii. 
VOL.  I.— 20 


154  UNIVERSALITY    OF    THE   CHURCH.  [PART   I 

Augsburgh,^  and  the  Apology  of  the  Confession,^  both  of  which 
were  the  standing  formularies  of  the  Lutherans.  The  Zuin- 
ghans  said  in  their  "  Helvetic  Confession,"  "  there  is  only  one 
church  which  we  therefore  call  catholic,  because  it  is  universal, 
and  diffused  through  all  parts  of  the  world,  and  extends  to  all 
times,  being  included  in  no  particular  localities  or  ages.  There- 
fore we  condemn  the  Donatists,  who  restricted  the  church  to 
some  corners  of  Africa  ;  nor  do  we  approve  the  Roman  clergy, 
who  vaunt  of  the  Roman  church  alone  as  the  catholic."'  Cal- 
vin acknowledges  that  "  the  universal  church  is  a  multitude 
gathered  out  of  all  nations,  which  though  divided  and  dispersed 
by  distance  of  place,  yet  agreeth  to  the  one  true  and  divine 
doctrine,  and  is  united  by  the  bond  of  a  common  religion. 
That  under  this  church  particular  churches,  which  to  meet  the 
wants  of  man  are  disposed  throughout  the  towns,  Sec.  are  so 
comprehended,  that  each  of  them  rightly  possesses  the  name 
and  authority  of  a  church."'^     The  same  doctrine  of  the  univer- 


e  '  Cum  ecclesiae  apud  nos  de  nuUo  articulo  fidei  dissentiant  ab  ecclesia 
catholica." — Pars  ii.  Prologus. 

•■  "  Catholicam  ecclesiam  dicit,  ne  intelligamus,  ecclesiam  esse  politiam 
externam  certarum  gentium,  sed  magis  homines  sparsos  per  totum  orbem^ 
qui  de  evangelio  consentiunt,  et  habent  eundem  Christum,  eundem  Spiritum 
sanctum,  et  eadem  sacramenta,  sive  habeant  easdem  traditiones  humanas, 
sive  dissimiles." — Apolog.  Confess,  iv.  de  Ecclesia. 

'  "  Consequitur  unara  duntaxat  esse  ecclesiam :  quam  propterea  catho- 
licam nuncupamus,  quod  sit  universalis,  et  diffundatur  per  omnes  mundi 
partes,  et  ad  omnia  sc  tempora  extendat,  nuUis  vel  locis  inclusa  vel  tempo- 
ribus.  Damnamus  ergo  Donatistas,  qui,  ecclesiam  in  nescio  quos  Africae 
coarctabant  angulos.  Nee  Romanensem  approbamus  clerum,  qui  solam 
prope  Romanam  ecclesiam  venditant  pro  Catholica." — Conf.  Helvetica, 
cap.  xvii. 

k  "  Ecclesiam  universalem  esse  collectam  ex  quibuscumque  gentibus 
multitudinem,  qua;  intervallis  locorum  dissita  et  dispersa,  in  unam  tamen 
divinae  doctrinae  veritatem  consentit,  et  ejusdem  religionis  vinculo  colligata 
est.  Sub  hac  ita  comprehendi  singulas  ecclesias,  qus  oppidatim  et  vica- 
tim  pro  necessitatis  human;*  ratiunc  disposita;  sunt,  ut  unaquajquc  nomen 
ftt  auctoritatem  ecclesiae,  jure  obtineat,"  &c.' — Calvin.  Institut.  iv.  1.  s.  9. 


CHAP.  Tir.]  UNIVERSALITY   OF    THE    CHUnCH.  155 

sality  of  the  church  is  inculcated  by  the  Geneva  Catechism/ 
the  Bohemian  Confession,™  the  Catechism  of  Heidelburgh,"  the 
Declaration  of  Thorn,"  &c. 

Even  various  denominations  of  dissenters  admit  the  same 
truth :  thus  the  Presbyterians,  in  1647,  admitted  that  "the visible 
church"  is  "  cathohc"  or  "  universal."  i'  The  Quaker  Barclay 
acknowledges  the  church  to  be  catholic.i  Dr.  Owen  admits 
the  same  for  the  Independents,  thus  :  "  The  end  of  all  particu- 
lar chuirches  is  the  edification  of  the  church  catholic  unto  the 
glory  of  God  in  Christ."''  Again  :  "  The  church  that  confines 
its  duty  unto  the  acts  of  its  own  assemblies,  cuts  itself  off  from 
the  external  communion  of  the  church  catholic ;  nor  will  it  be 
safe  for  any  man  to  commit  the  conduct  of  his  soul  to  such  a 
church."^  And  the  modern  dissenters,  in  their  "  Library  of 
Ecclesiastical  Knowledge,"  also  confess,  that  there  is  a  catholic 
or  universal  church.*  .       i  .     -  ■ 

Is  it  possible  that  a  stronger  proof  can  be  offered  for  the 


'  Catechismus  Genevensis,  de  fide.  ■  - 

"'  Conf.  Bohemica,  art.  viii. 

n  Catechesis  Heidelburgensis,  queest.  liv. 

o  Declarat.  Thoruniensis,  vii.  de  Ecclesia. 

p  Westminster  Confession,  chap.  xxv.  "  Tlie  visible  church  which  is 
also  catholic  or  universal  under  the  Gospel,  not  confined  to  one  nation,  as 
before  under  the  law,"  &c. 

q  He  acknowledges  there  is  "  one  catholic  church,"  "  out  of  which 
church  we  freely  acknowledge  there  can  be  no  salvation,"  and  that  it 
is  so  because  there  is  a  "  universal  or  catholic  spirit,  by  which  many  are 
called  from  the  four  corners  of  the  earth,  and  shall  sit  down  with  Abraham, 
Isaac,  and  Jacob," — Apology  for  the  Quakers,  prop.  x.  p.  273.  It  is 
needless  to  detail  the  strange  meaning  in  which  he  takes  these  propo- 
sitions. 

■■  Nature  of  the  Gospel  Church,  p.  414.  ■ 

8  Ibid.  p.  413. 

•  "  Communion  with  other  churches,  in  letters  recommendatory  or  dia- 
missory  .  .  .  and  all  other  expressions  of  regard  to  sister  churches  .... 
are  a  part  of  the  communion  of  saints,  which  constitutes  one  of  the  great- 
est blessings  of  the  true  catholic  church."— Essays  on  Ch.  Polity,  (on 
church  discipline)  vol.  ii.  p.  417. 


156  UNIVERSALITY    OF    THE    CIIURCH.  [PART    I. 

essential  universality  of  the  church,  than  this  consent  of  all 
ages,  churches  and  sects  ? 

4.  The  doctrine  of  the  British  churches,  on  this  point,  does 
not  admit  of  any  question.  The  creeds  always  used  in  these 
churches  from  the  earliest  ages,  profess  a  belief  in  the  church 
as  "  catholic  ;"  and,  not  to  speak  of  the  hymn  "  Te  Deum," 
the  Litany,  which  was  revised  and  corrected  at  the  period  of 
the  Reformation,  contains  the  following  passage  ;  "  That  it 
may  please  thee  to  rule  and  govern  thy  holy  church  universal 
in  the  right  way  :"  and  in  the  prayer  for  the  Church  Militant, 
in  the  office  of  the  Holy  Communion,  we  pray  God  "to  inspire 
continually  the  universal  church  with  a  spirit  of  truth,  unity, 
and  concord."  In  another  prayer  we  desire  "the  good  estate 
of  the  catholic  church."  In  the  bidding  of  prayer,  before  ser- 
mons, we  are  exhorted  to  pray  "  for  Christ's  holy  catholic 
church."  Nothing  therefore,  can  be  more  evident,  than  that  these 
churches  have  always  recognised  the  catholicity  or  universality 
of  the  church  ;  and  surely  nothing  could  have  induced  them  to 
do  so,  except  the  belief  that  this  was  an  essential  characteristic 
of  the  church,  and  that  it  had  been  generally  received  on  the 
express  warrant  of  Scripture  itself.  Amongst  our  theologians 
who  in  modern  times  have  taught  this  truth.  Archbishop  Usher 
says  :  "  The  catholic  church  is  not  to  be  sought  for  in  any  one 
angle  or  quarter  of  the  world,  but  among  '  all  that  in  every 
place  call  upon  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord,  both  theirs 
and  ours'  (1  Cor.  i.  2).  Therefore  to  their  Lord  and  ours  it  was 
said,  '  Ask  of  me,  and  I  \w\\\  give  thee  the  heathen  for  thine 
inheritance,'  &c.  (Ps.  ii.  8) ;  and  to  this  mystical  body,  the 
cathohc  church,  accordingly,  '  I  will  bring  thy  seed  from  the 
East,  and  gather  them  from  the  West :  I  will  say  to  the  North, 
Give  up,  and  to  the  South,  Keep  not  back  :  bring  my  sons  from 
far  andmy  daughters  from  the  ends  of  the  earth'  (Is.  xliii.  5 — 7). 
Thus  must  we  conceive  of  the  catholic  church,  as  of  one  entire 
body,  made  up  by  the  collection  and  aggregation  of  all  the  faith- 


CHAP.    VII.]  OBJECTIONS.  157 

ful  unto  the  unity  thereof,"'^  &c.  Dr.  Field  says,  that  Bcllar- 
mine  "labours  in  vain  in  proving  that  there  is,  and  alvirays  hath 
been,  a  visible  church,  and  that  not  consisting  of  some  few 
scattered  Christians,  without  order  of  ministry  or  use  of  sacra- 
ments ;  for  all  this  we  do  most  willingly  yield  unto ;"  though 
some  few,  as  he  says,  may  have  held  a  different  opinion.^  Dr. 
Rogers  speaks  well  of  the  visible  catholic  church.^  Bishop 
Pearson  admits  and  proves  the  universality  of  the  church,  as 
follows  :  "  The  most  obvious  and  most  general  notion  of  this 
Catholicism  consisteth  in  the  diffusiveness  of  the  church,  ground- 
ed upon  the  commission  given  to  the  builders  of  it,  '  Go,  teach 

all  nations' The  church  of  Christ,  in  its  primary 

institution,  was  made  to  be  of  a  diffusive  nature,  to  spread  and 
extend  itself  from  the  city  of  Jerusalem,  where  it  first  began,  to 
all  the  parts  and  corners  of  the  earth  ....  This  reason  did  the 
ancient  fathers  render  why  the  church  was  called  catholic  ;  and 
the  nature  of  the  church  is  so  described  in  the  Scriptures." 
He  afterwards  says,  in  explanation  of  the  creed,  "  I  look  upon 
this  church,  not  like  that  of  the  Jews,  limited  to  one  people, 
confined  to  one  nation,  but  by  the  appointment  and  command 
of- Christ,  and  by  the  efficacy  of  his  assisting  power,  to  be  dis- 
seminated through  all  nations,  to  be  extended  to  all  'places,  to 
be  propagated  to  all  ages."^ 


■     OBJECTIONS. 

1 .  If  the  true  church  must  always  be  universal,  the  Luthe- 
rans and  Reformed  could  not  have  been  the  church  of  Christ, 
for  they  were  never  universal,  and  when  Luther  began  to  preach, 
he  stood  alone. 


"  Sermon  before  the  King  on  Eph.  iv.  13. 

V  Field,  of  the  Church,  book  i.  c.  i. 

w  Rogers,  Discourse  of  the  visib.  and  invisib.  Church,  part  ii.  c.  i. 

*  Bp.  Pearson  on  the  Creed,  art.  ix. 


158  OBJECTIONS.  [part  I. 

Answer.  These  societies  were  not  properly  churches,  but 
yet  were  not  to  be  condemned  as  schismatically  separated  from 
the  church,  as  I  shall  hereafter  prove,  (chap,  xii.) 

II.  The  universality  of  the  church  is  only  to  be  understood 
as  a  successive  universality  ;  that  is,  all  nations  were  to  receive 
the  gospel  successively,  and  not  at  once ;  so  that  the  church  of 
Christ  might  at  any  given  time  be  contained  in  a  single  province. 

Answer.  This  explanation  is  inconsistent  with  the  direct  and 
evident  meaning  of  those  glorious  prophecies,  which  speak  of 
Christ's  having  dominion  over  all  nations,  from  one  end  of  the 
world  to  the  other.  In  this  case  Christianity  might  never  have 
been  more  extended  than  Judaism,  and  the  miraculous  incarna- 
tion and  death  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  all  the  miracles  of  his  dis- 
ciples, would  have  produced  no  material  improvement  in  the 
condition  of  the  world  generally.  But,  in  fact,  we  know  from 
Scripture  and  history  that  Christianity  was,  at  least  once,  mo- 
rally speaking,  universal ;  therefore  we  must  reasonably  infer 
that  this  was  the  universality  designed  by  the  prophecies.  I 
therefore  cannot  admit  the  principle  of  successive  universality  ; 
though  it  is  granted  by  Bellarmine,  Driedo,  and  Melchior  Canus, 
among  the  Romanists,  by  the  schoolmen  Occam,  Cameracen- 
sis,  and  Turrecremata,^  and  supported  by  some  of  our  own 
theologians,  who  too  readily  admitted  a  notion,  which  seemed 
useful  for  the  defence  of  the  truth  against  their  opponents. 

III.  The  church  was  not  universal  in  the  time  of  Arius,  or  of 
the  Council  of  Ariminum,  for  Arianism  generally  prevailed  then. 

Answer.  This  will  be  noticed  in  part,  iv.,  (on  the  Synod  of 
Ariminum,)  where  it  will  be  proved  that  the  catholic  church 
never  failed  in  the  time  of  Arianism. 

IV.  The  church  was  not  universal  at  the  first  when  it  was 
confined  within  the  city  of  Jerusalem ;  therefore  universality 
is  not  an  essential  characteristic  of  the  true  church. 

Answer.  Christ  predicted  that  the  church  should  be  as  a 
grain  of  mustard  seed  at  the  beginning,  and  should  afterwards 


y  Field,  Of  ilie  Church  book,  i.  c.  10. 


CHAP.  VII.]  OBJECTIONS.  ■  159 

greatly  increase  ;  therefore  the  smallness  of  the  church  at  first, 
is  no  objection  to  its  subsequent  universaUty. 

V.  The  church  is  called  catholic  in  the  creed,  because  it 
teaches  all  Christian  doctrines  and  duties,  and  contains  all 
graces.     Several  of  the  fathers  explain  it  thus. 

Answer.  They  all  assert  that  it  is  also  catholic,  in  the  ordi- 
nary sense  here  maintained.  These  are,  therefore,  moral  and 
mystical  interpretations  of  the  term,  which  are  not  intended  to 
interfere  with  its  more  direct  meaning.  < 

VI.  Universality  belongs  to  Mahomedanism,  therefore  it  is 
not  a  peculiar  characteristic  of  the  church  of  Christ. 

Ansiver.  (1.)  Mahomedanism  does  not  profess  to  be  the  church 
of  Christ,  therefore  if  it  were  universal,  it  could  not  be  mis- 
taken for  the*  church.  (2.)  It  is  inferior  to  Christianity  in  diffu- 
sion, as  the  latter  exists  wherever  Mahomedanism  exists,  and  in 
many  other  countries  where  it  does  not.  ,  , 

VII.  If  the  church  be  admitted  to  be  visible  and  universal, 
then  it  must  be  also  admitted,  with  the  Papists,  that  there  is 
one  universal  visible  head  of  the  church. 

Answer.  (1.)  A  visible  society  may  be  governed  by  a  plu- 
rality of  rulers.  It  is  not  necessarily  a  monarchy.  (2.)  The 
mere  apparent  expediency  of  a  spiritual  monarchy  is  no  proof 
of  its  actual  existence,  because  we  might  infer  the  continuance 
of  the  extraordinary  gifts  of  the  Spirit,  or  the  infallibility  of 
individuals  on  the  same  grounds. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

ON  THE  APOSTOLICITY  OF  THE  CHURCH. 

The  church  of  Christ  is,  by  the  admission  of  all  parties, 
apostolical,  or  derived  in  some  manner  from  the  apostles.  I 
have  already,  in  a  preceding  chapter,  (chap.  vi.  sect,  i.)  ob- 
served on  those  rules  by  which  it  may  be  determined,  whether 
a  society,  professing  to  be  Christian,  is  really  derived,  as  a 
society,  from  the  apostles.  It  was  there  shown,  that  any  so- 
ciety which  is  in  fact  derived  from  them,  must  be  so,  by  spi- 
Mtual  propagation,  or  derivation,  or  union, 'not  by  separation 
from  the  apostles  or  the  churches  actually  derived  from  their 
preaching,  under  the  pretence  of  establishing  a  new  system  of 
supJ)osed  apostolic  perfection.  Derivation  from  the  apostles,  is 
in  tho  former  case  an  evident  reality,  just  as  much  as  the  de- 
scent of  an  illustrious  family  from  its  original  founder.  In  the 
latter  c^,e  it  is  merely  an  assumption,  in  which  the  most  essen- 
tial links  oC  the  genealogy  are  wanting. 

But  therq';  is  another  point  of  view  in  which  the  church  is 
apostolical.  The  ministry  of  the  true  church  originated  with 
the  apostles,  and  must  always  therefore  be  derived  from  them 
in  some  way.  I  shall  proceed  to  the  discussion  of  this  question, 
and  lead  it  on  gradually  to  those  conclusions,  which  will  enable 
us  to  apply  "  the  apostolicity  of  the  ministry,"  as  a  test  of  the 
true  church. 

1.)    THE   CHRISTIAN    MINISTRY    IS    ESSENTIAL   TO    THE    CHURCH, 
AND  MUST  ALWAYS  EXIST. 

It  is  a  principle   of  reason,  no  less  than  of  Scripture,  that 
men  "  cannot  hear  without  a  preacher."^     Therefore  Christ 

"  Rom.  X.  14i 


GHAP.  VIII.]  THE  CHURCH  APOSTOLICAL.  161 

himself  became  a  preacher  and  minister  ;  and  at  the  last  sent 
his  apostles,  with  a  commandment,  to  "  go  and  teach  all  na- 
tions."'' We  find  the  Apostles  not  only  fulfilling  this  office, 
but  constituting  "  presbyters  in  every  church,"'^  and  making 
the  most  ample  provision,  that  the  gospel,  which  had  been 
communicated  to  them,  should  be  taught  to  others  also.  And 
since  Christ  had  promised  to  be  always  with  his  apostles,  and 
had  sent  them  forth  with  the  same  high  commission  which  he 
had  received  of  the  Father,  their  works  were  his  works,  their 
institutions  his  institutions.  Hence  Scripture  tells  us,  that 
when  "  he  ascended  up  on  high"  he  "  gave  some,  apostles  ; 
and  some  prophets  ;  and  some  evangelists  ;  and  some  pastors 
and  teachers  ;  for  the  perfecting  of  the  saints,  for  the  work  of 
the  ministry,  for  the  edifying  of  the  body  of  Christ ;  till  we  all 
come  in  the  unity  of  faith,  and  of  the  knowledge  of  God,  unto 
a  perfect  man  ....  that  we  be  no  more  children  tossed  to  and 
fro,  and  carried  about  with  every  wind  of  doctrine,  by  the 
sleight  of  men,  and  cunning  craftiness,  whereby  they  lie  in 
wait  to  deceive  ;  but  speaking  the  t7~uth  in  love,  may  grow  up 
into  him  in  all  things,  which  is  the  head,  even  Christ."*^  This 
passage  intimates,  that  the  Christian  ministry  was  instituted  , 
by  Christ,  for  the  most  permanent  and  essential  objects  ;  the 
sanctification  of  the  brethren,  and  their  preservation  in  Chris- 
tian t7-uth  and  love,  against  the  deceits  of  false  and  antichristian 
teachers.  And  in  fine  the  pastors  of  Ephesus  were,  by  the 
"  Holy  Ghost  made  overseers  to  feed  the  church  of  God,"® 
and  "  teachers  "  are  declared  to  be  set  in  the  church  by  God, 
no  less  than  apostles  and  prophets. ^  Hence  it  is  clear,  that  a 
true  and  lawful  ministry  is  essential  to  the  church,  and  that  any 
society  in  which  there  is  no  such  ministry  is  not  a  church ;  and 
it  is  equally  clear,  that  such  a  ministry  must  exist  at  all  times, 
because  it  has  been  proved  that  the  church  was  always  to  exist. 
If  it  be  admitted  that  the  ministry  of  Christ  has  at  any  time 

•■  Matt,  xxviii.  20.  c  Acts  xiv.  23  'i  Epli.  iv.  8—15. 

'  Aets  XX.  28.  f  1  Cor.  xii.  28. 

VOL.  I. — 21 


162  THE  CHURCH  APOSTOLICAL.  [PART  I. 

ceased  to  exist,  there  can  be  no  certainty  that  it  now  exists,  for 
the  only  absolute  proof  of  its  present  existence  is  derived  from 
the  Scripture,  which  represents  it  as  essential  to  the  church, 
and  which  affords  the  promise  of  a  perpetual  divine  aid  to  the 
apostles,  and  their  successors  in  the  Christian  ministry.  And 
if  there  has  ever  been  a  period  when  this  ministry  was  extin- 
guished, it  cannot  be  necessary  to  the  church. 

The  opinion  of  Christians  in  all  ages,  and  of  all  sects,  has 
always  been,  that  the  Christian  ministry  is  essential  to  the 
church.  St.  Ignatius  declares,  that  "  without  these  there  is  no 
church."s  St.  Jerome  says,  that  a  society  "  which  has  no 
clergy  is  not  a  church."^  But  without  further  dwelling  on  the 
well-known  sentiments  of  the  primitive  church,  let  us  come  to 
more  modern  times.  The  Lutherans,  in  the  Confession  of 
Augsburgh,  declared,  that,  "  in  order  that  we  might  obtain  this 
(justifying)  faith,  the  ministry  of  preaching  the  gospel  and 
administering  the  sacraments  was  mstituted  ;"  and  they  add, 
that  "they  condemn  the  Anabaptists  and  others,  who  think 
that  men  receive  the  Holy  Spirit  without  the  external  word."' 
In  the  Apology  of  the  Confession  they  said ;  "  If  order  be 
understood  of  the  ministry  of  the  word,  we  should  without 
difficulty  have  termed  order  a  sacrament ;  for  the  ministry  of 
the  word  hath  the  commandment  of  God,  and  hath  mighty 
promises,'"'  &c.  The  "  Helvetic  Confession "  of  the  Zuin- 
glians  says,  that  "The  original  institution  and  office  of  minis- 
ters is  most  ancient,  and  from  God  himself;  not  a  new  or 

g  X*f«f  TOi/Tccv  iKKKna-icL  oh  x.i.Kfna.i. — Ad  Trail.  C.  3.  '  - 

b  "  Ecclesia  non  est,  quae  non  habet  sacerdotes." — Hier.  adv.  Lucifer. 

'  "  Ut  hanc  fidem  consequamur,  institutum  est  ministcrium  docendi 
evangelii  et  porrigendi  sacramenta  ....  Damnant  Anabaptistas  et  alios, 
qui  sentiunt  Spiritum  Sanctum  contingere  sine  verbo  externo  hominibus 
per  ipsorum  praeparationes  et  opera." — Conf.  August,  pars  i.  art  v. 

''  "  Si  auten^  ordo  dc  ministerio  verbi  intelligatur,  non  gravatim  voca- 
verimus  ordinom  sacramentum.  Nam  ministerium  verbi  habet  mandatum 
Dei,  et  habet  magnificas  promissiones."  (Refcn-ing  to  Rom.  i.  10.  and 
Isaiah  Iv.  11). — Apologia  Confess.  August,  vii.  de  nu.  et  usu  Sacrament. 


CHAP.  VIII.]  THE  CHURCH  APOSTOLICAL.  163 

human  appointment.'"  The  apostles,  they  say,  "  ordained 
pastors  and  teachers  throughout  all  the  churches  in  the  world, 
by  the  command  of  Christ ;  by  whose  successors  even  to  the 
present  time,  he  taught  and  ruled  the  church."™  The  Con- 
fession of  the  Hugonots  says  :  "  We  believe  the  true  church 
ought  to  be  governed  with  that  polity  or  discipline  which  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  sanctioned  ;  that  is,  there  should  be  in  it 
pastors,"  &C.''  The  Bclgic  Confession  employs  the  same 
language,  and  styles  the  ministry  "an  ordinance  of  God."° 
The  Bohemian  Confession,^  and  the  Tetrapolitan,'i  acknow- 
ledge its  divine  institution  ;  and  the  Geneva  Catechism  affirms, 
that  "  he  who  despises  or  refuses  to  hear  the  ministers,  de- 
spises Christ."''  Calvin  argues  at  length  in  proof  of  the  neces- 
sity of  the  ministry  in  the  church  ;^  saying,  that  the  church  is 
not  otherwise  edified  than  by  external  preaching  i"*-  he  affirms, 
that  "  Christ  so  ordained  the  office  of  the  ministry  in  the 
church,  that,  were  it  taken  away,  the  church  would  perish."^ 

The  dissenters  of  various  "  denominations  "  also  allow  the 
divine  institution  of  the  ministry.  The  Presbyterians,  in  1647, 
taught  that  to  the  "  Catholic  visible  church,  Christ  hath  given 


'  "  Ergo  ministrorum  origo,  institutio,  et  functio  vetustissima  et  ipsius 
Dei ;  non  nova  aut  hominum  est  ordinatio." — Confess.  Helvet.  caput  xviii. 

"  Iljid-  "  Conf.  Gallicana,  xxix. 

o  Conf.  Belgica,  xxx.  xxxi.  p  Conf.  Bohemica,  art.  ix. 

q  Conf.  Tetrapolitana,  cap.  xiii.  The  Saxon  Confession,  art.  xii.  also 
teaches  that  without  the  ministry  the  church  woukl  perish  utterly. 

■■  "  Estne  igitur  necesse  praeesse  Ecclesiis  pastores  ?  Quin  etiam  ne- 
cesse  est  audire  eos,  et  quam  proponunt  Cliristi  doctrinam,  ex  eorum  ore 
cum  timore  et  reverentia  excipere,  Itaque  qui  ipsos  contemnit,  audireve 
detrectat,  Christum  contemnit,  ac  discessionem  facit  a  societate  fidelium." 
— Catechis.  Genev.    (De  Verbo  Dei.) 

s  Calvin.  Institut.  iv.  c.  i.  sect.  5,  6. 

t  "  Nobis  vero  quod  ex  Paulo  citavimus  tenendum  est,  ecclesiam  non 
aliter  adificari  quam  externa  yradicalione.''''     (Sect,  v.) 

"  "  Incumbit  (Satan)  ad  labefactandum  ministerium  :  quod  tamen  sic  in 
Ecclesia  Christus  ordinavit,  ut  illo  sublato,  hujus  ajdificatio  pereat."— iv 
c.  i.  sect.  11.      . 


104  THE  CHURCH  APOSTOLICAL.  [PART  1. 

the  ministry,  oracles,  and  ordinances  of  God,"^  where  the  min- 
istry is  regarded  as  much  the  work  of  God,  as  the  Bible  or 
the  sacraments.  The  dissenting  "  Library  of  Ecclesiastical 
Knowledge  "  contains  on  this  subject  some  sound  positions. 
It  proposes  the  question,  "  Are  there,  or  are  there  not,  the 
means  provided  ...  by  which,  if  faithfully  pursued,  the  light 
of  heavenly  truth  would  not  go  out,  would  shine  without  eclipse 

upon  successive  generations,"  &c.''^ This  is  explained 

to  refer  to  "  a  system  of  means — of  means  to  be  diffusive, 
operative,  and  permanent ;  not  without  divine  power,  but  yet 
without  miraculous  accompaniments  or  new  inspiration."^  The 
reply  is,  that  the  eternal  happiness  of  mankind  is  mainly  sus- 
pended on  means  ;  and,  amongst  means,  chiefly  on  :i  preached 
gospel :  '  It  hath  pleased  God,  by  the  foolishness  of  preaching, 
to  save  them  that  believe.'  "^  The  Christian  ministry  is  here 
directly  referred  to  ;  and  it  follows  that  this  means  of  grace  is, 
by  the  divine  institution,  to  be  permanent  in  the  church.  This 
is  exactly  what  I  contend  for,  that  the  Christian  ministry  is 
essential  to  the  church  ;  and  as  the  church  can  never  have 
failed,  so  the  ministry  can  never  have  failed.  There  must 
always  have  been,  there  must  now  be,  a  Christian  ministry, 
such  as  God  and  Christ  originally  instituted. 

(2.)    A    DIVINE    VOCATION    IS    ESSENTIAL    TO    THE    CHRISTIAN 

MINISTRY. 

In  the  Old  Testament  we  read  of  the  awful  punishment  of 
Corah,  Dathan,  and  Abiram,  for  usurping  the  priests'  office  ;^ 
and  King  Uzziah  was  smitten  with  leprosy  for  daring  to  imitate 
their  example.^     Those  who  undertook  the  prophetical  office 


"  Westminster  Conf.  chapter  xxv.  art.  iii. 

w  Essays  on  Ch.  Polity  (the  Church  the  Conservator  of  a  Christian 
Ministry),  vol.  ii.  p.  347. 
-^  Ibid.  348.  y  Ibid.  349. 

*  Numbers  xvi.  "  2  Chron.  xxvi. 


CHAP.  VIII.]  THE  CHURCH  APOSTOLICAL.  .  165 

without  divine  mission  were  most  severely  rebuked.''  In  the 
New  Testament  we  observe  the  same  principle  of  the  necessity ' 
of  a  commission  from  God  to  minister  in  sacred  things.  Our 
Lord  himself,  though  he  had  come  into  the  world,  from  his  eternal 
glory,  to  preach  the  Gospel,  did  not  assume  the  office  of  the  . 
ministry  until  he  was  anointed  with  the  Spirit,  and  miraculously 
commissioned  by  the  Father  :  "  Christ  also  glorified  not  himself 
to  be  made  a  high-priest"  (Heb.  v.  .5.);  but,  as  Isaiah  says  : 
"  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord  was  upon-iiim,  because  the  Lord  hath 
anointed  him  to  preach  good  tidings"  (Is.  Ixii.  1).  The  old 
priesthood  had  been  unapproachable  by  merely  human  pov/cr  : 
"  No  man  taketh  this  honour  unto  himself,  but  he  that  is  called 
of  God,  as  was  Aaron"  (Hcb.  v.  4).  The  ministry  of  the  Gospel 
was  far  superior  in  dignity  to  that  of  the  law :  "  For  if  the  ministra- 
tion of  condemnation  be  glory,  much  more  doth  the  ministration  of 
righteousness  exceed  in  glory  "  (2  Cor.  ii.  9).  Hence  it  is  to  be 
concluded,  that  the  more  glorious  office  was  not  to  be  assumed 
by  men,  when  the  less  glorious  had  been  always  conferred  by 
God.  Accordingly  it  is  the  principle  of  the  New  Testament, 
that  the  ministry  of  the  gospel  is  not  to  be  assumed  by  men 
without  the  authority  of  God  :  "  How  shall  they  preach  except 
they  be  sent  ?"  (Rom.  x.  15).  It  was  God  that  sent  the  apos- 
tles ;•=  HE  also  "  gave  pastors  and  teachers,"*^  and  the  Holy 
Spirit  made  them  overseers  of  the  church  of  God  :^  therefore 
they  ran,  only  because  they  were  commanded  and  authorized 
by  God  to  run  ;  they  were  his  ministers,  bearing  his  commis- 
sion, either  directly  and  miraculously  appointed  to  offices  in  his 
church,  or  indirectly  by  means  of  those  who  were  authorized  to 
send  labourers  into  the  vineyard. 

The  sublime  and  awful  responsibilities  of  a  minister  of  Jesus 
Christ,  would  indeed  have  prevented  the  most  faithful  of  his 
disciples  from  undertaking  this  office,  from  apprehension  lest 
they  should  be  led  into  temptation.     They  would  have  felt,  with 

^  Jeremiah  xxiii.  21.  32.  ^  John  xx.  21.  ^  Eph.  iv.  11. 

"  Acts  XX.  28. 


166  THE  CHURCH  APOSTOLICAL,  [pART  I. 

the  apostle  :  "  Who  is  sufficient  for  these  things  ?  "  (2  Cor.  ii. 
16),  unless  the  special  aid  and  presence  of  the  Holy  Ghost  had 
been  promised  to  them  ;  and  still  more,  unless  they  had  known 
themselves  to  be  truly  and  rightly  called  hy  the  will  of  God  to 
so  mighty  an  office,  they  would  never  have  undertaken  it. 

The  notion  that  men  may  undertake  to  be  ministers  of  God, 
without  being  authorized  by  God,  carries  its  own  refutation 
along  with  it,  at  the  very  first  view.  Were  all  men  entitled  to 
assume  this  office  at  pleasure,  the  apostle  would  have  asked  in 
vain,  "  Are  all  apostles,  are  all  prophets,  are  all  teachers  ?  "  (1 
Cor.  xii.  29).  He  could  not  have  added :  "  God  is  not  the  author 
of  confusion  but  of  peace,  as  in  all  the  Churches  of  the  saints"  (1 
Cor.  xiv.  33):  for  if  all  men  were  entitled,  on  their  own  opinion 
of  their  fitness,  to  assume  the  office  of  the  ministry,  there  could 
be  nothing  but  endless  confusion  and  disorder.  The  Scriptures, 
however,  leave  no  doubt  on  the  matter  :  such  intruders  are  char- 
acterized by  our  Lord,  as  men  "  that  came  in  their  oivn  name'''' 
(John  V.  43);  he  declares  that  they  are  "thieves  and  robbers" 
(John  X.  8). 

This  has  been  the  general  sentiment  of  all  professing  Chris- 
tians :  I  shall  reserve  the  testimony  of  the  fathers  for  the  latter 
part  of  this  chapter.  The  Reformation,  in  general,  condemned 
those  who  pretended  to  be  ministers  of  God,  without  any  com- 
mission. The  Helvetic  Confession  says:  "We  condemn  all 
who  run  of  their  own  accord,  who  are  not  chosen,  sent,  nor  or- 
dained"*" (John  xxiii.  32).  The  same  doctrine  is  taught  by 
the  Confession  of  the  Hugonots,^  and  by  that  of  the  Belgian 
Protestants,  who  say,  that  "  every  one  ought  to  take  care  not  to 
intrude  himself  by  unlawful  methods,  but  to  wait  the  season  in 
which  he  shall  be  called  of  God,  in  order  that  he  may  have  a 
testimony  of  his  vocation,  and  be  sure  that  it  is  of  God."''  The 
Bohemian  Confession,'  and  the  Polish  Declaration, '"■  concur  in 

■"  "  Damnamus  hie  omnes,  qui  sua  sponte  currunt,  cum  non  sint  electi, 
missi,  vel  ordinati." — Conf.  Helvetica,  c.  xviii. 

6  Conf.  Gallicana,  xxxi.  ''  Conf.  Belgioa,  xxxi. 

'  Conf.  Boh.  art.  ix.  ^  Declaratio  Thorunicusis,  Dc  Ordinc. 


CHAP.  VIII.]  THE  CHURCH  APOSTOLICAL.  167 

the  same  principles.  According  to  Calvin,  "  it  was  expressly 
provided  that  no  one  should  assume  a  public  office  in  the  church 
without  vocation  (Heb.  v.  4.  and  Jer.  xvii.  16),  lest  restless  and 
turbulent  men  should  rashly  intrude  themselves  into  the  teach- 
ing or  government  of  the  church.  Therefore,  in  order  that  any 
one  be  deemed  a  true  minister  of  the  church,  he  must  first  be 
rightly  called  ....  If  so  great  a  minister  of  Christ  (St.  Paul) 
does  not  dare  to  arrogate  to  himself  the  authority  to  be  heard 
in  the  church,  only  that  he  has  been  ordained  to  this  office  by 
the  Lord's  commandment,  and  faithfully  discharges  what  is  com- 
mitted to  him  ;  how  great  will  be  the  impudence  of  any  man, 
who,  devoid  of  either  or  both  these  qualifications,  demands  this 
honour  for  himself  ?  "V  Owen,  the  independent,  says  :  "  None 
can  or  may  take  this  office  upon  him,  or  discharge  the  duties  of 
it,  which  are  peculiarly  its  own,  with  authority,  but  he  who  is 
called  and  set  apart  thereunto,  according  to  the  mind  of  Jesus 
Christ "...."  The  general  force  of  the  rule,  Heb.  v,  4.  in- 
cludes a  prohibition  of  undertaking  any  office  without  a  divine 
call."- 

(3.)  AN  INTERNAL  VOCATION  IS  INSUFFICIENT  ALONE  TO  CONSTI- 
TUTE  A  MINISTER  OP  CHRIST. 

There  is  not  an  instance  in  the  sacred  Scripture,  of  any  man 
being  sent  forth  as  a  minister  of  Christ,  merely  by  an  internal 
impulse  of  the  Spirit,  unattested  either  by  miracles,  or  by  an 
external  commission  from  the  ministers  of  God.  The  apostles 
were  all  manifestly  sent  by  our  Saviour- :  "'As  my  father  hath 
sent  me,  even  so  send  I  you."  They  were  hallov/ed  by  fiery 
tongues  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  and  invariably  performed 
miracles.  The  other  disciples,  who  acted  as  ministers,  received 
an  external  call  from  the  apostles  or  their  deputies,  or  were 
enabled  to  show  miraculous  proofs  of  their  mission.  In  truth, 
this  external  calling  or  manifestation,  must  be  absolutely  essen- 


'  Calvin.  Instifut.  iv.  c.  iii.  sect.  10. 

>»  Gospel  Church,  chapter  iv.  (The  Officers  of  the  Church)   Vvhere  he 
strongly  condemns  those  that  intrude  on  the  sacred  office. 


/ 


168  THE  CHURCH    APOSTOLICAL.  ■     [pART  1. 

tial  to  the  Christian  ministry,  because  a  minister  of  Jesus 
Christ  must  be  able  to  prove  his  mission  to  others,  as  well  as 
to  himself.  Now  an  inward  call  is  no  proof  to  others  :  it  may- 
be counterfeited,  it  may  be  imaginary,  it  may  be  enthusiastic. 
Scripture  teaches  us,  that  there  shall  be  many  false  prophets, 
and  pretenders  to  inspiration ;  and,  that  they  "  shall  deceive 
many."''  It  is  obvious,  that  the  bold  and  persevering  assertion 
of  an  inward  call,  especially  if  accompanied  by  that  hypocriti- 
cal pretension  to  sanctity,  which  such  impostors  too  often  as- 
sume, is  precisely  the  mode  in  which  we  might  expect  that  peo- 
ple would  be  deceived.  Nor  is  it  to  be  said  in  reply,  that  mi- 
racles are  only  necessary  in  the  case  of  a  new  Revelation,  but 
not  when  an  old  Revelation  is  to  be  preached  more  purely  than 
it  has  been.  For  teachers  who  do  not  profess  to  teach  any 
new  Revelation,  may  pervert,  corrupt,  and  mutilate  that  which 
has  been  made  ;  and  thus  may,  in  effect,  preach  "  another  gos- 
pel," which  the  holy  apostle  pronounces  "  anathema  "  (Gal. 
i.  8,  9).  I  do  not,  in  any  degree,  doubt  that  the  true  ministers 
of  Jesus  Christ  are  internally  "  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost"  to 
undertake  their  holy  office  ;  but  it  is  also  the  will  of  God,  that 
they  should  be  externally  called  and  sent. 

(4.)  POPULAR  ELECTION  ALONE  IS  INSUFFICIENT  TO  CONSTITUTE 

A  MINISTER  OF  CHRIST. 

The  Scripture  affords  no  example  of  a  popular  election  of 
ministers  independently  of  the  apostles'  sanction :  the  seven 
deacons  named  by  the  people  were  afterwards  ordained  by 
them."  In  fact,  we  find  the  apostles  "  ordaining  elders  in 
every  church  "  (Acts  xiv.  23),  and  appointing  pastors  to  the 
churches  of  Ephesus  and  Crete,  who  were  commissioned  to 
"  ordain  presbyters  in  every  city."  It  is  perfectly  uncertain 
whether  the  people  had  any  share  in  these  appointments.     But 


"  Matt.  xxiv.  11.     Sep  a1?o  ]  .Tolin  iv.  1.     Acts  xx.  30.    2  Pet.  li.  1,2, 
Jucle. 

"  Actsvi.  G. 


CHAP.  VIII.]  THE  CHimCH  APOSTOLICAL.  169 

the  grand  and  unanswerable  proof  that  popular  election  alone 
cannot  constitute  at^hristian  minister,  is  the  fact  confessed  by 
the  most  ardent  advocates  for  such  elections,  that  "  No  case  oc- 
curs in  the  inspired  history  ivhere  it  is  mentioned  that  a  church 
elected  its  pastor."'^  This  fact  is  undeniable,  and  it  is  conclu- 
sive. Popular  election  alone  cannot  constitute  a  minister  of 
Christ,  and  besides  this,  it  caimot  even  be  requisite  to  his  mis- 
sion ;  for  it  is  not  to  be  supposed  that  Scripture  would  omit  all 
notice  of  the  very  essentials  of  the  Christian  ministry.  There 
is,  however,  one  more  passage  in  Holy  Scripture  which  de- 
monstrates, beyond  all  possibility  of  a  reply,  that  popular  elec- 
tions alone  cannot  constitute  ministers  of  Christ.  "  The  time 
will  come  when  they  will  not  endure  sound  doctrine  ;  but  after 
their  own  lusts  shall  they  heap  to  themselves  teachers,  having 
itching  ears  ;  and  they  shall  turn  away  their  ears  from  the  ti'uth, 
and  shall  be  turned  unto  fables"  (2  Tim.  iv.  3,  4).  This  text 
shakes  to  its  very  foundation  the  claims  of  those  who  pretend 
to  derive  their  mission  only  from  popular  election,  because  it 
proves  that  such  elections  may  be  entirely  unauthorized  and 
contrary  to  the  will  of  God.  I  do  not  deny  that  sometimes  in 
the  primitive  church,  the  people  elected  their  pastors,  but  this 
custom  was  not  universal,  and  the  ministers  of  Jesus  Christ 
always  confirmed  and  ordained  the  pastors  so  elected.  These 
facts  however  are  only  learned  from  catholic  tradition,  and  can- 
not consistently  be  appealed  to  in  any  way  by  those  who  declare 
that  "  the  Bible  only  "  is  their  rule  of  discipline. 

(5.)  AN  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION  OF  ORDINATIONS  IS  ESSENTIAL 
TO  THE  CHRISTIAN  MINISTRY. 

It  has  been  already  proved  that  a  divine  commission  is  of 
the  essence  of  the  Christian  ministry,  and  that  no  man  can  by 
his  own  mere  assumption  become  a  minister  of  Christ.  It  has 
been  further  shown,  that  a  merely  internal  vocation  does  not 
constitute  a  Christian  minister,  and  that  popular  election  affords 


r  James'  Church  Member's  Guide,  p.  12.  2d  ed, 
VOL.   1,-22 


170  THE  CHURCH  APOSTOLICAL.  [PART  I. 

no  proof  of  his  vocation  according  to  the  will  of  God.  There 
is  then  only  one  remaining  mode,  in  which  men  can  receive  a 
divine  commission  for  the  sacred  office,  namely,  by  means  of 
ministers  authorized  to  convey  it  to  others. 

It  is  evident,  that  if  God  authorized  the  apostles  and  their 
successors  to  ordain  ministers,   and  transmit  to  them  a  divine 
commission,    there  would  be  a  clear  and    intelligible  mode  in 
which   this  commission  could  be  perpetuated  in  the  church. 
Accordingly,  Christ  did  so  :  he  gave  to  the  apostles  his  own 
mission  ;  "As  my  Father  hath  sent  me,  even  so  send  I  you  ;"i 
empowering  them  by  these  words  to  give  to  others  the  mission 
which  by  the  very  act  of  conferring  it  on  the  apostles  he  show- 
ed to  be  transmissible.     Those  who  received  from  the  apostles 
the  mission  of  Jesus  Christ,  received  a  similar  power  to  trans- 
mit it  to  others  ;  and  thus  alone  the  ministers  of  Christ  were 
constituted.     In  fact,  we  know  that  those  whom  the  apostles 
ordained  were  constituted  by    "  the  Holy  Ghost  j""^  they  were 
"  pastors'' and  teachers  "  set  "  by  God  "  in  his  church.^    There- 
fore they*  were  evidently  empowered  by  God  to  give  their  own 
divine  mission  to  Christian  ministers  ;    and  the   succession  of 
such  ministers   was  never  to  fail :   "  Lo,  I   am  with  you  (and 
therefore  with  your  successors),  always,  even  to  the  end  of  the 
world:''' 

The  ministers  of  Christ  are,  according  to  Scriptural  exam- 
ple, to  be  sent  forth  by  other  mmisters  by  the  imposition  of 
hands  and  prayer.  The  apostles  ordained  the  seven  deacons 
by  prayer  and  laying  on  of  hands. ^  St.  Paul  ordained  Timothy 
in  like  manner,'^  and  he  commanded  him  to  "  lay  hands  sud- 
denly on  no  man."^  Accordingly,  the  universal  church  always 
considered  the  imposition  ©f  hands  by  the  ministers  of  Christ 

q  John  XX.  21.  r  1  Cor.  xii.  28.  b  Acts  xx.  28. 

t  [i.  e.  The  apostles.  It  by  no  means  follows  that  all  to  whom  they  give 
a  divhie  mission,  received  at  the  same  tune  a  commission  to  impart  that 
mission  again  to  others,] 

"  Matt,  xxviii.  20.      "  Acts  vi.  6.     "  2  Tim.  i.  6.     ^1  Tun.  v.  22. 


• 


CHAP.  VIII.]  THE  CHURCH  APOSTOLICAL.  171 

essential  to  ordination.  The  (Ecumenical  Council  of  Nice/ 
and  the  various  synods  of  Antioch,^  Ancyra,^'  Carthage,''  &c. 
all  recognize  this  rite,  which  is  also  acknowledged  as  apostoli- 
cal and  essential,  in  the  Helvetic'',  the  Bohemian,''  the  Pohsh,*" 
and  other  confessions.  And  the  universal  practice,  not  only  of 
the  church,  but  of  all  sects,  evinces  the  persuasion  of  all  pro- 
fessing Christians  that  this  mode  of  ordination  is  essential. 
Those  very  sects,  some  of  whose  members  will  argue  that  the 
imposition  of  hands  by  ministers  of  Christ  is  unnecessary,  tes- 
tify to  the  contrary  by  their  conduct  and  rule  ;  and  the  Wesley- 
ans,  whose  ministers  were  formerly  instituted  by  a  verbal  com- 
mission, have  lately  felt  it  necessary  to  adopt  the  imposition  of 
hands.  Such  is  the  force  and  clearness  of  the  apostolical  tra 
dition. 

I  shall  now  conclude  this  argument.  It  is  certain  from  what 
has  been  said,  that  the  Christian  ministry  must  always  exist, 
and  can  never  have  failed.  It  is  certain  that  the  essence  of  this 
ministry  consisted  mainly  in  a  divine  commission,  and  that  the 
ministry  of  the  church  must  have  always  possessed  it.  It  is 
equally  certain  that  the  mode  by  which  this  commission  was 
conveyed  must  always  be  essentially  the  same.  Now  the 
apostolic  mode  of  ordination,  by  which  the  apostles  and  their 
successors  the  bishops  of  the  universal  church,  sent  forth  the 
ministers  of  Jesus  Christ,  by  imposition  of  hands  and  prayer  : 
this  mode  alone  has  always  existed  in  the  church.  For  many 
ages  popular  elections  were  unheard  of.  The  apostolic  mode 
of  ordination  alone  prevails  in  all  ages,  and  among  all  nations. 
It  is  therefore  evidently  the  external  vocation  instituted  by  God 
himself.  If  it  be  not  so  ;  if  it  be  a  mode  of  human  invention  ; 
it  could  never  have  constituted  ministers  of  Christ,  and  therefore 
the  whole  church  would  for  many  ages  have  been  without  true 


y  Canon  ix.  ^  Canon  xvii.  "  Canon  ix. 

''  IV.  Cone.  Carthag.  (398)  cap.  2,  3,  4. 
c  Confessio  Helvetica,  cap.  xviii. 
d  Confess.  Bohemica,  art.  ix. 
e  Declaratio  Thoruniensis.    (De  Ordine.) 


172  THE    CHURCH    APOSTOLICAL.  [PART  I. 

ministers,  it  would  have  been  deficient  in  what  is  essential  to 
the  church  of  Christ,  and  therefore  the  cathohc  church  must 
have  entirely  failed :  a  position  which  is  directly  and  formally 
heretical. 

The  great  external  sign  of  such  a  continuance  of  ordinations 
in  any  church,  is  derived  from  the  legitimate  succession  of  its 
chief  pastors  derived  from  the  apostles  ;  for  it  is  morally  certain, 
that  wherever  there  has  been  this  legitimate  succession,  the 
whole  body  of  the  clergy  have  been  lawfully  commissioned.— 
This  succession  from  the  apostles  is  a  certain  mark  of  a  church 
of  Christ,  unless  it  be  clearly  convicted  of  .schism  or  heresy. 
I  shall  briefly  notice  the  doctrines  of  the  fathers  on  these  points. 

St.  Irenaeus  says,  "  We  can  enumerate  those  who  were  by 
the  apostles  instituted  bishops  in  the  churches,  and  their  succes- 
sors even  to  us"  .  .  .  "  By  the  same  ordination  and  succession 
the  doctrine  of  the  apostles  in  the  church,  and  the  proclamation 
of  the  truth,  have  come  even  unto  us."''  "  Wherefore  it  is  ne- 
cessary to  obey  those  presbyters  who  are  in  the  church,  those 
who  have  succession  from  the  apostles,  as  we  have  shown,  and 
who,  with  the  succession  of  the  episcopate,  have  received  the 
certain  gift  of  truth  according  to  the  will  of  the  Father ;  but  as 
for  those  w^ho  depart  from  the  principal  succession,  and  meet  in 
any  place,  they  are  to  be  suspected,  either  as  heretics  and  men 
of  false  doctrine,  or  as  schismatics,  pufl'ed  up,  and  pleasing 
themselves,  or  as  hypocrites,  impelled  to  such  actions  by  ava- 
rice and  vain-glory."^ 

Tertullian  :  "  If  any  heresies  dare  to  connect  themselves  with 
the  apostolic  age,  pretending  to  be  derived  from  the  apostles 

^  "  Habemus  annumerare  eos  qui  ab  apostolis  instituti  sunt  episcopi  in  ec- 
clesiis,  et  successores  eorum  usque  ad  nos." — Iren.  adv.  Haeres.  iii.  c.  iii, 
"  Hac  ordinatione  et  successione,  ea  qua;  est  ab  apostolis  in  ecclesia  traditio, 
et  veritatis  praeconatio  pervenit  usque  ad  nos." — Ibid. 

s  "  Quapro])ter  eis  qui  in  ecclesia  sunt,  presb}rteris  obaudire  oportet,  his 
qui  successionem  habent  ab  apostolis,  sicut  ostendimus ;  qui  cum  episcopatus 
successione  charisma  veritatis  certum,  secundum  placitum  Patris  accepe- 
runt,"  &c. — Adv.  Hser.  iv.  c.  26. 


CHAP.  VIII.]  THE    CHURCH    APOSTOLICAL.  173 

because  they  existed  in  their  time,  we  may  say  :  Let  them  de- 
clare the  origin  of  their  churches  :  let  them  unfold  the  catalogue 
of  their  bishops,  so  descending  by  succession  from  the  begin- 
ning, that  the  first  bishop  had  as  his  ordainer  and  predecessor 
some  one  of  the  apostles,  or  of  the  apostolic  men  who  remained 
united  to  the  apostles."^^ 

Cyprian :  "  Novatian  is  not  in  the  church,  nor  can  he  be 
deemed  a  bishop,  who,  despising  the  evangelical  and  apostolical 
tradition,  and  succeeding  to  no  one,  is  sprung  from  himself. — 
One  not  ordained  in  the  church  has  no  church."'  "These" 
(heretics)  "  are  they  who,  of  their  own  accord,  without  the  divine 
will,  appoint  themselves  to  preside  over  some  random  conven- 
ticle ;  who,  without  any  lawful  ordination  constitute  themselves 
pastors  ;  who,  without  receiving  it  from  any  of  the  bishops,  as? 
sume  to  themselves  the  title  of  bishop."'^ 

Oplatus  :  "  You  who  pretend  to  claim  for  your  own  the  holy 
church  :  declare  the  origin  of  your  episcopal  see  !  "' 

Ephrem  Syrus  :  "  They  are  to  be  urged  again  each  of  them 
to  show  his  age,  which  is  the  more  ancient.  Manes  may  claim 
the  right  of  primogeniture,  but  Bardesanes  was  before  him,  &c. 
....  Let  them  again  be  distinctly  asked  from  whom  they  re- 


h  "  Cseteriim  si  quae  audent  interserere  se  aetati  apostolicae,  ut  ideo  videan- 
tur  ab  apostolis  traditae,  quia  sub  apostolis  fuerunt,  possumus  dicere  :  edant 
ergo  origines  ecclesiarura  suarum  :  evolvant  ordinem  episcoporura  suorum, 
ita  per  successiones  ab  initio  decurrentem,  ut  primus  ille  episcopus  aliquem 
ex  apostolis  vel  apostolicis  viris,  qui  tamen  cum  apostolis  perse veraver it, 
habuerit  auctorem  et  antecessorem. " — TertuU.  de  Praescript.  c.  32. 

'  "  Novatiamis  in  ecclesia  non  est,  nee  episcopus  computari  potest,  qui 
evangelica  et  apostolica  traditionc  contempta,  nemini  succedens,  a  se  ipso 
ortus  est :  habere  namque  aut  tenere  ecclesiam  nullo  modo  potest,  qui  ordi- 
natus  in  ecclesia  non  est." — Epist.  ad  Magnum  (ep.  Ixxvi.). 

''  "  Hi  sunt  qui  se  ultro  apud  temerarios  convenas,  sine  divina  disposi- 
tione,  practiciunt ;  qui  se  praepositos  sine  ulla  ordinationis  lege  eonstituunt ; 
qui  nemine  episcoporum  dante,  episcopi  sibi  nomen  assumunt." — Cypr.  de' 
Unit.  Ecclesiae. 

'  "  Vos  vestrae  cathedrae  originem  reddite,  qui  vobis  vultis  sanctam  eccle 
siam  vindicare." — Lib.  ii.  cont.  Parmen. 


,,4 


174  OBJECTIONS.  [part  1. 

ceived  the  imposition  of  hands  ?  And  if  they  received  it  from 
us,  and  afterwards  rejected  it,  the  trilth  seeks  nothing  more. — 
But  if  they  took  the  priest's  oifice  themselves,  there  is  enough  to 
refute  them  and  cover  them  w^ith  shame.  For  then  any  one 
may  be  a  priest  if  he  pleases  to  lay  hands  on  his  own  head."'" 

OBJECTIONS. 

I.  All  Christians  may  celebrate  the  praise  of  God,  offer  to 
him  spiritual  sacrifices,  and  mutually  comfort  and  exhort  each 
other  (Eph.  v.  19;  Col.  iii.  16;  1  Thess.  iv.  18.)  Therefore 
there  is  no  need  of  any  formal  vocation. 

Ansiver.  These  are  not  properly  the  work  of  the  ministry,  but 
religious  and  charitable  exercises  which  are  performed  without 
authority,  and  cannot  interfere  with  the  office  of  those  whom 
"  the  Holy  Ghost  hath  made  overseers  over  the  flock  to  feed 
the  church  of  God  "  (Acts  xx.  28) ;  of  whom  it  is  said,  "  Obey 
them  that  have  the  rule  over  you,  and  submit  yourselves,  for 
they  watch  for  your  souls,  as  they  that  must  give  account" 
(Heb.  xiii.  17). 

II.  Those  who  were  dispersed  after  the  death  of  Stephen, 
(Acts  viii.  4),  went  every  where  preaching  the  word. 

Ansive?-.  (1.)  They  did  not  preach  where  the  church  already 
existed  ;  therefore  their  preaching  affords  no  pretext  for  assum- 
ing the  office  of  the  ministry  in  the  church.  (2.)  It  is  not  said 
that  every  one  preached,  but  only  in  general  terms,  that  those 
who  were  dispersed  abroad  did  so,  and  we  may  reasonably  sup- 
pose that  such  persons  were  either  ministers  of  the  church  (as 
Philip,  Acts  viii.  5),  or  were  endowed  with  gifts  of  the  Spirit  to 
prove  their  mission. 

III.  The  "house  of  Stephanas  addicted  themselves  to  the  min- 
istry of  the  saints"  (1  Cor.  xvi.  15). 

Answer.  They  did  so  with  the  sanction  and  approbation  of 
St.  Paul,  and  not  merely  from  their  own  impulse. 

™  Serm.  xxii.  adv.  Hter.  torn.  ii.  p.  487,  488.  Oper.  Ephr.  Syri  Syriace 
et  Lat.  ed.  Assemani. 


CHAP.  VIII.]    .  OBJECTIONS.         •  175 

IV.  "  It  is  written  in  the  prophets,  and  they  shall  all  be  taught 
of  God"  (John  vi.  45).  "  Ye  have  an  unction  from  the  Holy- 
One,  and  ye  know  all  things"  (1  John  ii.  20).  "  The  Spirit 
shall  lead  you  unto  all  truth"  (Johnxvi.  13). 

Answer.  (1.)  These  passages  cannot  prove  the  Christian 
ministry  needless,  because  its  divine  institution  is  recorded  in 
Scripture.  (2.)  They  speak  of  the  high  spiritual  privileges  of 
Christians,  but  these  privileges  are  only  conferred  on  him  who 
obeys  God's  commandments,  "  for  he  it  is  that  loveth  me  " ;  and 
one  of  those  commandments  is  :  "  Obey  them  that  have  the  rule 
over  you,"  6lc. 


^:. 


V 


*  i 


CHAPTER  IX.     .        *   •! 


ON    THE    ORIENTAL    CHURCHES. 


J.  The   Oriental  (sometimes  called  the  Greek)  church  pre- 

vails more  or  less  in  Russia,  Siberia,  North  America,  Poland, 
European  Turkey,  Servia,  Moldavia,  Wallachia,  Greece,  the 
Archipelago,  Crete,  Cyprus,  the  Ionian  Islands,  Georgia,  Cir- 
cassia,  Mingreha,  Asia  Minor,  Syria,  Palestine,  Egypt.  The 
vast  and  numerous  churches  of  the  East  are  all  ruled  by  bishops 
and  archbishops,  of  whom  the  chief  are  the  four  Patriarchs  of 
Constantinople,  Alexandria,  Antioch,  and  Jerusalem.  The 
Russian  church  was  subject  to  a  fifth  patriarch  from  the  latter 
part  of  the  sixteenth  century  ;  but  since  the  reign  of  Peter  the 
Great,  the  appointment  to  this  high  office  has  been  suspended 
by  the  emperor,  who  deemed  its  power  too  great,  and  calculated 
to  rival  that  of  the  throne  itself.  In  its  place  Peter  the  Great 
instituted  the  "  Holy  Legislative  Synod,"  which  is  directed  by 
the  emperor.^  I  maintain  that  these  various  churches  form  a 
portion  of  the  catholic  church  of  Christ. 

1.  They  have  always  existed  visibly  as  Christian  societies. 
No  period  can  be  assigned  since  the  introduction  of  Christianity, 
in  which  vast  numbers  of  these  churches  were  not  visibly  exist- 
ing. The  invasions  and  persecutions  of  barbarians  and  Mahom- 
medans  extinguished  for  a  time  many  ancient  branches  of  the 
Oriental  church,  but  their  loss  has  been  repaired  continually  by 
the  conversion  of  infidels  and  the  foundation  of  new  societies  ; 
so  that  there  has  never  yet  been  a  period,  in  which  we  cannot 


»  See  Mosheim,  vol.  iv.  sect.  3.  part  i.  chapter  2  ;  Consett's  Present  State 
of  the  Church  of  Russia,  (1729)  which  contains  the  "  Spiritual  Regulation" 
for  the  Synod,  composed  by  Theophancs,  archbishop  of  Novogrod,  and  pub- 
lished by  Peter  the  Great. 


SECT.  I.]  THE  ORIENTAL  CHURCHES.  177 

trace  the  existence  of  great  societies  of  Christians  in  the  East, 
from  which  the  existing  Oriental  churches  have  been  all  regu- 
larly and  peaceably  derived  by  spiritual  propagation.  These 
communities  all  constitute  the  original  churches  of  their  respec- 
tive districts.  They  did  not  in  any  case  separate  themselves 
from  an  older  Christian  society  existing  in  those  localities. 
Whatever  may  be  said  as  to  their  change  of  doctrines,  or  their 
cessation  from  the  communion  of  the  Western  churches,  there  , 
can  be  no  dispute  that  they  are  the  original  Christian  societies 
of  their  own  districts. 

2.  It  is-  certain  that  the  Oriental  churches  maintain  principles 
which  lead  to  unity  of  communion.  No  one  disputes  that  they 
maintain  the  obligation  of  obedience  on  the  part  of  the  faithful  to 
their  respective  pastors,  and  that  if  any  one  should  voluntarily 
separate  himself  from  the  church  on  any  pretext,  he  would  be 
viewed  as  a  schismatic  by  them.  They  regard  the  bishops  as 
successors  of  the  apostles,  and  esteem  it  necessar}'-  to  commu- 
nicate with  and  obey  them.  And  accordingly  it  is  evident  that 
these  churches  are  in  fact  generally  united  in  themselves  and 
with  each  other. 

Nor  have  these  churches  ever  separated  themselves  from  the 
communion  of  the  cathohc  church,  because  they  themselves 
have  at  all  times  constituted  a  very  great  portion  of  that  church, 
(as  we  shall  see  hereafter,)  and  for  the  same  reason,  they  could 
never  have  -been  excommunicated  by  the  catholic  church. 
Therefore  they  remain  in  the  unity  of  the  church,  and  it  may 
easily  be  shown,  that  the  imputation  of  real  schism  cannot  rest 
upon  them.  As  for  their  non-communion  with  the  Roman  see, 
the  mere  fact  proves  nothing,  for  if  all  those  who  are  separated 
de  facto  from  this  communion  must  necessarily  be  cut  off  from 
the  true  church,  the  Roman  pontiffs  must  be  infallible  and 
impeccable,  which  Romanists  themselves  do  not  pretend. 
Therefore  we  can  only  determine  the  question  by  looking  at 
the  facts  of  the  original  division  ;  and  these  will  exculpate 
both  the  Oriental  and  the  Western  churches,  in  general,  from 
the  charge  of  schism. 
VOL.  I. — 23 


178  THE  OraENTAL  CHURCHES.  [P.  I.   CH.  IX. 

3.  The  Oriental  churclies  maintain  principles  which  lead  to 
unity  in  faith.  They  receive  Scripture  as  the  rule  of  their  faith, 
and  the  apostohcal  traditions  of  the  church  as  a  guide  in  its 
interpretation. '^  These  traditions  they  follow  with  the  highest 
reverence.  They  acknowledge  the  authority  of  the  church,  and 
receive  with  perfect  devotion  the  definitions  of  the  oscumenical 
councils,''  to  which  tliey  require  the  assent  of  the  clergy."^  It 
is  certain  that  they  reject  every  heresy  formerly  condemned  by 


^  See  the  Summary  of  Christian  Divinity,  by  Plato,  archbishop  of  Mos- 
cow, published  in  Sclavonian,  1765,  and  translated  by  Mr.  Pinkerton,  in 
his  "  Present  State  of  the  Greek  Church  in  Russia,"  1814.  The  doctrine 
of  this  work  in  all  matters  of  faith  and  morality  appears  generally  unex- 
ceptionable. It  only  differs  from  ours  in  defending  certain  practices  which 
we  have  judged  it  more  wise  and  pious  to  remove,  and  in  the  verbal  dispute 
concerning  the  procession  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  See  also  the  Answer  of 
Plato  to  M.  Dutens,  (OEuvres  Melees,  part.  2.  p.  162,  &c.)  commended  by 
Methodius,  archbishop  of  Twer,  in  his  "  Liber  Historicus  de  reb.  in  prim. 
Eccl.  Mosquee,  typis  sanctissimi  Synodi,  1805."  Smith's  book  on  the 
Greek  Church  is  brief  but  useful.  King's  "  Rites  of  the  Greek  Church  " 
is  written  in  a  latitudinarian  spirit. 

<=  Nectarii  Patr.  Hieros.  Confutatio  Imperii  Papae  in  Ecclesiam,  p. 
205,  &c.  They  acknowledge  only  seven  oecumenical  synods,  of  which 
the  last  was  the  Second  Nicene  under  Irene  in  787.  See  the  Reply  of  the 
patriarch  Jeremias  to  the  Wittemburg  Theologians,  p.  56.  255  ;  Plato's 
Summary  of  Christian  Divinity ;  Methodius,  Liber  Hist.  p.  173.  This 
work  of  the  archbishop  of  Twer  is  very  creditable  to  the  learning  of  the 
Russian  clergy,  and  he  speaks  in  terms  of  the  highest  commendation  of  our 
orthodox  vinriters,  Beveridge,  Bingham,  Ussher,  Cave,  Wotton,  Pearson, 
Bull,  &c. 

i  See  King's  Rites  of  the  Greek  Church  (Consecration  of  Bishops). 
The  second  Synod  of  Nice,  a.  d.  787,  which  they  reckon  cecunienical 
through  a  mistake  of  fact,  imposes  on  them  practices  with  regard  to  the 
pictures  of  saints,  which  our  churches  found,  by  bitter  experience,  liable 
to  the  most  serious  abuses.  Even  Archbishop  Plato  confesses,  that  the 
honour  paid  to  pictures  "  may  be  turned  into  the  most  abominable  idolatry." 
(p.  230.)  His  doctrine,  that  the  obeisance  before  them,  "  we  do  not  render 
to  the  pictures  themselves,"  but  "  to  the  persons  they  represent,"  (229)  is 
not  exactly  that  of  the  Synod  of  Nice,  which  declares  that  the  images 
are  themselves  to  receive  an  honour  which  ;jrt5.ve5  to  the  original. 


SECT.  I.]  THE  ORIENTAL  CHURCHES.  179 

the  catholic  church  ;  and  if  any  one  presumes  to  teach  novel- 
ties, they  condemn  and  excommunicate  him.^  In  fine,  the 
authority  of  the  church  is  fully  and  unreservedly  acknowledged 
and  upheld  among  them,  in  opposition  to  the  license  of  an  unbri- 
dled private  judgment.  Consequently  ihey  have,  both  in  prin- 
ciple and  practice,  unity  of  faith  ;  and  it  does  not  appear  that  they 
differ,  in  articles  of  faith,  from  the  rest  of  the  church.  The 
Roman  churches  claim  them  as  agreeing  with  themselves  on 
almost  every  point ;  and  if  we  may  judge  by  their  published 
sentiments,  we  should  conclude  that  the  Oriental  church,  as  a 
body,  denies  no  article  of  the  faith  which  we  ourselves  main- 
tain. But,  without  entering  on  the  particulars  of  their  doctrine, 
it  is  fairly  to  be  presumed  orthodox  on  the  whole  ;  because 
they  profess  a  perfect  adhesion  to  the  Scripture,  the  apostolical 
tradition,  and  to  all  the  definitions  of  the  catholic  church. 

4.  These  churches  inculcate  holiness  by  their  doctrine.^ 
No  one  pretends  to  accuse  them  of  denying  the  necessity  of 
sanctification.  They  have  given  birth  to  many  of  the  most 
celebrated  saints  and  martyrs,  whom  the  church  reverences. 
Ignatius,  Polycarp,  Justin,  Clement,  Dionysius,  Gregory 
Thaumaturgus,  Athanasius,  Cyril,  Gregory  Nazianzen  and 
Nyssene,  Basil,  Cyril  of  Alexandria,  Macarius,  Chrysostom, 
Epiphanius,  John  of  Damascus,  Methodius,  Nicholas,  and 
others  innumerable,  were  all  of  the  Oriental  churches.  From 
them  proceeded,  in  various  ages,  most  holy  missionaries,  who 
converted  to  the  Christian  faith  many  heathen  nations  ;  as,  for 
example,  the  Abyssinians,  Armenians,  Bulgarians,  Goths,  Scla- 
vonians,  Moravians,  Transylvanians,  Russians,  &c.  Hence  it 
is  evident,  that  the  Oriental  churches  have  shown,  in  all  ages, 
many  proofs  of  Christian  sanctity ;  and  whatever  may  be 
their  actual  sanctity  now,  when  afflicted  and  degraded  by  the 
long-continued  persecution  of  the  infidels,  it  can  scarcely  be 


e  Plato,  ut  supra,  p.  101.  169. 

<"  Plato,  p.  205,  &c.  They  maintain  the  doctrine  of  justification  hy  faith, 
ibid.  108.  See  also  Acta  et  Scripta  Theolog.  Witeberg.  et  Patr.  Hieremise, 
p.  64.    Witeberg,  1584. 


180  THE  ORIENTAL  CHURCHES.  [p.  I.  CH.  IX. 

inferior  to  that  of  the  Roman  churches  generally.  However, 
admitting,  for  the  sake  of  argument,  that  it  is  so,  this  would 
afford  no  proof  that  the  Oriental  is  not  a  branch  of  the  CathoUc 
church,  because  particular  churches  may  differ  in  holiness. 

5.  These  churches  are  Catholic.  Since  I  only  maintain  that 
the  Oriental  churches  are  a  part  of  the  Catholic  church,  it  is 
of  course  impossible,  from  the  very  terms  of  the  proposition, 
to  attempt  any  proof  that  they  are  themselves  universal.  These 
churches  themselves  only  claim  to  be  a  part  of  the  Catholic 
church  ;  and  they  do  not  deny,  that  the  remainder  of  the  church 
exists  in  the  West.  In  various  documents,  preserved  in  the 
Perpetuite  de  la  Foi,  the  Oriental  patriarchs  and  bishops  style 
their  churches  :  "  the  Holy  Catholic  Church  of  the  Greeks  ;"^ 
"  our  Holy  Catholic  Church  of  the  East  ;"^^  "  our  Oriental 
Church  ;"i  "the  Greek  Church  ;"k  "the  Holy  Catholic  and 
Apostolic  Church  of  the  East;"i  "our  Church  of  the  East, 
Catholic  and  Apostolic."™  They  argue,  that  there  cannot  have 
been  more  than  seven  oecumenical  synods,  because  the  Eastern 
and  Western  churches  have  been  divided  since  the  last  was 
held ;"  nor  do  they  universally  regard  those  of  the  Latin 
churches  as  heretics,  as  we  shall  see  hereafter.  In  fine,  there 
have  been,  at  various  times,  some  marks  of  communion  be- 
tween members  of  the  Oriental  church,  and   of  the  British," 

E  Perpetuite  de  la  Foi  touchant  I'Eucharistie,  torn.  iii.  p.  518. 

h  Ibid.  521.  '  Ibid.  522.  k  Ibid.  525.  '  Ibid.  532. 

m  Ibid.  562.  Plato,  archbishop  of  Moscow,  seems  to  allow  the  Latin 
'  to  be  a  part  of  the  church  (p.  101),  and  afterwards  rather  to  deny  it  (p. 
161,  162).  Nectarius,  patriarch  of  Jerusalem,  in  his  learned  and  most 
interesting  "  Confutatio  Imperii  Papae  in  Ecclesiam,"  (London,  1702), 
reckons  the  Latin  as  apartiadar  church,  a  portion  of  the  universal. — See 
pages  354.  357.  360.  Nectarius  lived  in  the  17th  century.  Methodius, 
.  archbishop  of  Twer,  seems  to  regard  the  Eastern  and  Western  churches, 
although  divided,  as  parts  of  the  catholic  church. — Liber  Hist.  p.  79,  80. 

n  Bouvier,  de  A^'era  Ecclesia.     De  Maistre,  du  Pape,  t.  ii.  p.  597. 

o  Cyrillus  Lucaris,  patriarch  of  Constantinople,  dedicated  his  work  on 
the  Faith  and  Doctrine  of  the  Eastern  Church,  to  King  Charles  I. ;  and 
presented  to  him  the  celebrated  Alexandrian  manuscript.     (See  Smith  on 


SECT.  I.]  THE  ORIENTAL  CHURCHES.  181 

and  other  Western  churches,  as  I  shall  prove.  The  Oriental 
churches  are  included  in  the  Catholic  church  by  all  our  theo- 
logians, though  they  observe  with  regret  certain  imperfections, 
abuses,  and  errors  among  them,  which  detract  from  their  per- 
fection, but  do  not  deprive  them  of  the  character  of  Christian 
churches.  Bishops  Jewell,  Bramhall,  Laud,  Stillingfleet,  &c. 
may  be  cited  to  prove  this.  •  -    ■ 

6.  These  churches  are  apostolical.  Many  of  them  still  sub- 
sist after  an  uninterrupted  succession  of  eighteen  hundred 
years  ;  such  as  the  churches  of  Smyrna,  Philadelphia,  Corinth, 
Athens,  Thessalonica,  Crete,  Cyprus.  Many  others,  founded 
by  the  apostles,  continued  to  subsist  uninterruptedly,  till  the  in- 
vasion of  the  Saracens  in  the  seventh  century,  and  revived  again 
after  their  oppression  had  relaxed.  Such  are  the  churches  of 
Jerusalem,  Antioch,  Alexandria,  and  others  :  from  these  apos- 
tolical churches  the  whole  Oriental  church  derives  its  origin  and 
succession :  for  whenever  new  churches  were  founded,  it  was 
always  by  authority  of  the  ancient  societies  previously  existing. 
With  these  all  the  more  recent  churches  held  close  communion ; 
and  thus,  by  the  consanguinity  of  faith  and  discipline  and  charity, 
were  themselves  apostolical.  They  were  also  apostolical  in , 
their  ministry ;    for  it  is  undeniable,  that  they  can  produce  a 

the  Greek  Church.)  He  also  corresponded  with  the  archbishop  of  Can- 
terbury. In  1653,  Dr.  Basire,  archdeacon  of  Northumberland,  in  the 
course  of  his  travels  in  the  East,  was  invited,  by  the  Metropolitan  of 
Achaia,  to  preach  twice  in  the  presence  of  the  Greek  bishops  and  clergy ; 
and  at  Jerusalem  he  received  from  Paisius,  patriarch  of  that  see,  his  patri- 
archal seal  (the  regular  sign  of  credence  among  them),  to  express  his  desire 
of  communion  with  the  church  of  England.  (See  Basire's  Life  and  Cor- 
respondence, by  Darnell,  p,  116.)  He  was  also  permitted  to  preach  fre- 
quently in  the  Greek  churches  at  Constantinople  ;  where  in  testimony  of 
his  docirine,  he  presented  to  the  patriarch  of  Jerusalem,  in  the  presence 
of  all  the  priests  and  people,  the  Catecliism  of  the  Church  of  England, 
which  was  also  highly  approved  by  the  other.  Oriental  patriarchs.  (Ibid, 
p.  123,  124.)  However,  the  communion  between  the  British  and  Oriental 
churches,  which  was  interrupted  in  the  middle  ages  through  misunder- 
standings, has  not  yet  been  restored. 


182  *         THE    OraENTAL    CHURCHES.  [v.  I.  CH.  IX. 

regular  uninterrupted  series  of  bishops,  and  of  valid  ordinations 
in  their  churches,  from  the  beginning.  No  one  denies  the  va- 
lidity of  their  ordinations. 

7.  Since  the  Oriental  churches  have  therefore  all  the  external 
signs  of  a  part  of  the  true  church,  it  -only  remains  to  examine 
the  facts  of  the  division  betvi'een  them  and  the  Western  churches, 
and  from  these  to  determine  whether  schism  or  heresy  is  to  be 
imputed  to  either  party. 


SECTION  II. 

ON    THE    DIVISION    OF    THE    EASTERN    AND    WESTERN 

CHURCHES. 

(1.)  THE  EVENTS  IN  THE  TIME  OF  CERULARIUS  DID  NOT  REN- 
DER EITHER  THE  EAST  OR  THE  WEST  SCHISMATICAL,  SO  AS 
TO    BE    CUT    OFF    FROM    THE    CATHOLIC    CHURCH. 

9 

In  order  to  establish  this  we  must  briefly  review  the  events 
alluded  to.  Though  there  had  been  at  various  times,  occasional 
schisms  between  the  particular  churches  of  Rome  and  Con- 
stantinople, yet  in  the  middle  of  the  eleventh  century,  the  East- 
ern and  Western  churches  held  communion,  and  acknowledged 
each  other  as  parts  of  the  same  holy  catholic  church.  Their 
intercourse  was  interrupted  in  the  following  manner. 

In  1053,  Michael  Cerularius,  patriarch  of  Constantinople,  a 
man  of  turbulent  spirit,  addressed  a  letter  to  the  bishop  of  Trani, 
in  Apulia,  to  be  communicated  to  the  Roman  pontiff,  and  the 
whole  Western  church. p  In  this  letter  he  strongly  inveighed 
against  several  of  their  rites  and  customs,  and  especially  that 
of  using  unleavened  bread  in  the  eucharist,  which,  he  argued, 
must  render  that  sacrament  invalid.  At  the  same  time  he 
closed  the  churches  and  monasteries  of  the  Latins  at  Constan- 
tinople. 

^  This  epistle  is  found  in  Canisii  Thesaurus  Monument.  Eccl.  torn.  iii. 
281.     It  was  to  be  communicated  "  ad  ipsum  reverendissimum  Papam." 


SECT.  II.]  DIVISION    OF    THE    EAST    AND    WEST:  183 

These  unreasonable  and  uncharitable  proceedings  naturally 
excited  indignation  in  the  West.  Pope  Leo  wrote  to  complain 
of  them  ;  and,  the  Greek  emperor  and  Cerularius  having  ex- 
pressed their  wish  for  peace,  he  sent,  in  1054,  three  legates  to 
Constantinople,  of  whom  the  principal  was  Cardinal  Humbert. 
A  worse  selection  could  scarcely  have  been  made,  with  a  view 
to  concord  and  unity.  Having  presented  to  the  emperor  his 
rephes  to  Cerularius  and  to  Nicetas,  a  studite  monk,  (who  had 
written  against  the  Latin  customs,)  in  which  he  bitterly  retorted 
the  charge  of  error  on  the  customs  of  the  Greeks,  and  threatened 
them  with  an  anathema  :i  Humbert  and  his  colleagues  pro- 
ceeded to  visit  Cerularius,  whom  they  treated  with  marked 
rudeness,  and  arrogantly  declared,  that  the)'-  had  not  come  to 
discuss  any  of  the  points  in  dispute,  but  to  insist  on  the  adoption 
of  their  own  rites  and  customs. ■■  This  latter  charge,  it  is  true, 
rests  on  the  testimony  of  Cerularius,  but  it  is  rendered  credible 
by  their  subsequent  conduct.  Supported  by  the  emperor,  who 
was  d(?sirous  of  conciliating  the  favour  of  the  Romafi  see,  and 
procuring  its  aid  against  the  Normans,  they  compelled  Nicetas 
to  abjure  his  writings,  and  to  anathematize  "all  who  contradicted 
the  faith  of  the  Roman  church."^  They  also  themselves  pub- 
licly excommunicated  "all  who  contradicted  the  faith  of  the  holy, 
Roman,  apostolical  see."'     And,  finally,  before  they  left  Con- 

1  His  reply  to  Cerularius  terminates  thus  :  "  Pro  quibus  omnibus  et  aliis 
quos  longum  est  scripto  prosequi  erroribus,  nisi  resipueritis  et  digne  satis- 
feceritis ;  irrevocabile  anathema  hie  et  in  futuro  eritis  a  Deo  et  ab  omnibus 
Catholicis." — Canisii  Thesaurus,  iii.  307.  His  reply  to  Nicetas  was 
equally  violent. — Ibid.  p.  324. 

r  See  the  epistle  of  Cerularius  to  Peter,  patriarch  of  Antioch,  in  Cotelerii 
Eccl.  Graec.  Monumenta,  ii.  138, 139.  He  complains  of  their  unspeakable 
insolence,  boasting,  and  temerity  in  his  presence ;  but  what  was  most  offen- 
sive of  all,  they  said,  otI  ou  S'tS'ct^8>i<rofxivot  it  tS'tct^t^^iia-o/uivoi,  Tci  ivrttuBa.  KdLTiKi^ov, 

&K\a  StS'd^'jV'ri'  fMLKKOt    KXt  TriHTOVTK  K^'J-TIIV  Mf^a;    TO.  SoyfA.ATct    TOV'TdV    KdLl    TUUTCt   fJLVr' 

i^Qvo-ioLQ  Kti  avoLKr^vvria.;  u7ri^0a.KMtja-ii!. — p.  145.     He  repeats  tlie  same  com- 
plaint in  his  second  letter,  p.  164. 

s  Flcury,  Hist.  Eccl.  liv.  60.  s.  8. 

«  Canisii  Thesaurus,  iii.  328. 


184  -  THE    ORIENTAL    CHURCHES.  [p.  I.  CH.  IX. 

stantinople,  they  placed  on  the  altar  of  St.  Sophia  a  paper  con- 
taining an  excommunication  of  Cerularius,  and  his  adherents,  in 
which  they  made  a  charge  of  heresy  on  those  who  maintained 
several  ancient  and  established  customs  of  the  Eastern  church.^ 
Cerularius  in  his  turn  denounced  anathema  against  the  authors 
and  supporters  of  the  excommunication/  and  the  Roman  pontiff 
did  not  disown  the  act  of  his  legates,  so  that  the  two  churches 
of  Rome  and  Constantinople  and  their  adherents  became  mutu- 
ally estranged. 

From  this  it  appears  evident  that  the  fault  did  not  rest  exclu- 
sively or  peculiarly  with  either  party.  In  fact,  it  would  be 
difficult  to  determine  which  were  more  guilty  of  harsh  and  un- 
charitable conduct ;  Cerularius,  in  depriving  the  Latins  of  their 
churches,  or  the  legates,  for  their  arrogance  and  their  needless 
and  uncharitable  denunciation  of  such  customs  as  the  marriage 
of  the  clergy,  and  the  use  of  the  Nicene  Creed  without  the  ad- 
dition of  "  filioquc,"  which  had  never  been  received  in  the  East, 
and  which  the  Roman  church  itself  did  not  afterwards  insist  on, 
in  its  temporary  reunions  with  the  Oriental  churches. 

But  blameable  as  the  conduct  of  both  these  parties  unques- 
tionably was,  still  it  does  not  follow  that  either  was  absolutely 
separated  from  the  catholic  church ;  for  neither  act  of  excom- 
munication was  known  and   approved   by  the  majority  of  that 


"  This  excommunication  is  found  in  Canisii  Thesaurus,  iii.  p.  32G.  It 
begins  thus  :  "  Sancta  et  Romana  prima  et  apostoHca  sedes,  ad  quam  tan- 
quam  ad  caput  solicitudo  omnium  ecclesianmi  speciaHus  pertinet,"  &c.  and 
having  accused  Michael  and  his  followers  of  numerous  heresies  on  the  most 
frivolous  grounds,  concludes  as  follows :  "  Michael  abusivus  patriarcHa  neo- 
phytus.  .  .  .  atque  cum  eo  Leo  Acridanus  episcopus  .  .  .  .  et  omnes  se- 
quaces  eorum  in  pra^fatis  erroribus  et  prsesumptionibus,  sint  Anathema 
Maranatha,  cum  Simonaicis,  Vallesiis,  Arianis,  Donalistis,  Nicholaitis,  Se- 
verianis,  Pneumatomachis,  et  Manichajis,  et  Nazarenis,  ct  cum  omnibus 
hsereticis,  imo  cum  Diabolo  et  angelis  ejus,  nisi  forte  resipuerint.  Amen. 
Amen.     Amen." 

^  Leo  Allatiusj  de  Lib.  et  rebus  Eccl.  p.  161.  gives  this  excommunica- 
tion. 


SECT.  II.]  DIVISION  OF  THE   EAST  AND  WEST.  185 

church.  At  most,  therefore,  they  merely  separated  the  par- 
ticular churches  of  Rome  and  Constantinople  from  friendly  mu- 
tual communion.  Nor  can  it  be  pretended  that  either  the 
Greeks  or  the  Latins  separated  themselves  from  the  majority  of 
the  church  :  the  Roman  pontiffs  and  those  who  accused  the 
Greeks  of  schism,  did  so  on  another  ground,  "  their  separation 
from  the  chair  of  Peter." 

It  is  not  to  be  imagined  that  either  the  church  of  Rome  or 
of  Constantinople  was  by  these  acts  separated  from  catholic 
unity  ;  and  still  less,  that  the  whole  West  or  the  whole  East 
could  be  cut  off  from  the  Christian  church  by  the  acts  of  one 
or  two  passionate  and  prejudiced  bishops.  Such  notions  would 
be  opposed  to  all  reason  and  precedent.  ' 

(2.)  THE  CHURCH  GENERALLY  DID  NOT  CONSIDER  EITHER  PARTY 

EXCOMMUNICATED. 

We  find  that  long  after  the  time  of  Cerularius,  a  certain 
degree  of  communion  still  subsisted  between  the  East  and 
West.  Leo  Allatius^  has  produced  several  proofs  that  the  acts 
of  Cerularius  did  not  prevent  the  union  of  the  churches  ;  and 
the  author  of  the  "  Perpetuite  de  la  Foi "  says,  that  "  even 
in  the  twelfth  century,  the  schism  was  not  yet  so  formed  as 
that  all  the  Greeks  were  generally  rejected  by  all  the  Latins, 
and  all  the  Latins  by  the  Greeks,  and  there  appeared  among 
many  of  them  marks  of  ecclesiastical  communion."-^ 

This  is  proved  by  the  following  facts,  which  show  that 

(3.)  THH  EASTERN  CHURCH  DID  NOT  CONSIDER  THE  WESTERN  AS 
HAVING  CEASED  TO  BE   A  CHURCH. 

Li  the  time  of  Cerularius,  Peter,  patriarch  of  Antioch,  in 
replying  to  a  letter  sent  to  him  by  a  western  prelate,  Dominic, 
archbishop  of  Grade,  expressed  sentiments  of  Christian  com- 


w  Leo  Allatius,  de  Consens.  p.  624,  &c. 
-  Perpetuite  de  la  Foi,  t.  i.  p.  202. 
VOL.  I. — 24 


186  THE  ORIENTAL  CHURCHES.  [r.  I.  CH.  IX. 

munion  ;y  and  he  endeavoured  to  prevail  on  Cerularius  to  urge 
nothing  on  the  Latins,  M^hom  he  considered  as  "  brethren," 
except  the  removal  of  the  addition  which  they  had  made  to  the 
Creed. ^  In  1094,  Simon,  patriarch  of  Jerusalem,  wrote  an 
epistle  to  the  Christians  of  the  West,  soliciting  their  aid  against 
the  Saracens,  which  Peter  the  Hermit  brought  into  Europe. 
In  1 1 55,  Basil,  archbishop  of  Thessalonica,  in  his  reply  to 
Hadrian  IV.  of  Rome,  denies  that  the  Eastern  church  was 
guilty  of  schism,  while  he  fully  admits  that  the  Western  holds 
the  Orthodox  faith,  ai?d  forms  part  of  the  universal  church. '^ 
Fleury,  in  relating  that  Wilham,  archbishop  of  Tyre,  in  1180, 
praised  the  Greek  emperor  Manuel,  and  "  said  that  his  soul 
was  gone  to  heaven,  and  that  his  memory  was  blessed,"  ob- 
serves, that  this  proves  that  the  prelate,  "  Latin  as  he  was, 
held  the  emperor  to  be  catholic."     Manuel  had  also  communi- 

y  "  Non  adeo  praefracte  ac  scripsisti  sanctissimus  patriarcha  Constanti- 
nopolitanus  (Cerularius)  vestram  existimationem  invadit,  vosque  appellat 
cacodoxos  abscinditque  a  sancta  catholica  ecclesia :  sed  probe  cognoscens 
orthodoxos  esse,  idemque  nobiscum  sentire  circa  solidam  theologiam,"  &c. 
— Cotelerii  Eccl.  Graec.  Monumenta,  torn.  ii.  p.  117.  According  to  him, 
the  use  of  unleavened  bread  was  the  only  material  point  of  difference  be- 
tween the  churches — Ibid,  and  p.  122. 

^  Cotelerii  Eccl.  Graec.  Monum.  ii.  154.  dJ'iK<po)  ja/j  ko.)  m/uZv  'ouTot.  See 
also  p.  160,  where  he  reconemends  the  question  of  unleavened  bread  to  be 
left  indifferent,  if  the  Latins  will  remove  their  interpolation  from  the  Creed. 

^  "Quid  igitur  ad  nos  '  errantis  ovis'  similitude  sanctissime  Papa? 
Quid  imago  '  amissae  drachmae  V  Non  enim  e  sinu  tuo  excidisse  negatnus, 
et  filiorum  appellationem  aut  pastoralera  curam  non  refugimus,  ut  tale  con- 
vicium  exprobretur.  Tuto  autem  ac  fu'miter,  Dei  gratia,  stetimus  in  B. 
Petri  confessione,  et  quern  ille  confessus  est  et  praedicavit,  confitemur  et 
praedicamus,  nihil  ex  synodalibus  S.  Patrum  innovantes,  nee  adjicientis 
evangelicis  et  apostolicis  verbis  ad  unum  apicem  .  .  .  Neque  enim  aliud 
novimus  fundamentum,  quam  quod  substructum  est,  eademque  tecum  praedi- 
camus et  docemus,  ego  iique  omnes  qui  ad  magnam  apostolicamque  sedem 
Constantinopolitanam  pertinemus.  Et  tmus  qui  in  utrisque  ecclesiis  per- 
sonat  sermo  fidei,  idemque  sacrificatur  agnus  .  .  .  inter  Occidentales  An- 
tistites  qui  sub  tuum  principale  culmen  agunt,  et  nos  qui  ab  oriente  sole, 
sublimi  Constantinopolitana  sede,  sacerdotii  accipimus  splendorera." — Ba- 
ronius,  an.  1155. 


SECT.  II.]  DIVISION  OF  THE  EAST  AND  WEST.  187 

cated  with  Pope  Alexander,  and  "  one  cannot  say  that  in  his 
time  the  schism  of  the  Greeks  was  yet  formed."^  In  1199, 
John  Camaterus,  patriarch  of  Constantinople,  addressed  the 
Roman  pontiff  as  a  Christian  prelate,  and  "  his  beloved  bro- 
ther," while  he  wondered  at  his  styhng  the  Roman  church 
"  mriversal.""  In  1203,  Demetrius  Chomatcrus,  archbishop 
of  Bulgaria,  in  accordance  with  the  opinion  of  many  distinguish- 
ed men  of  the  Eastern  church,  condemned  the  decision  of 
Theodore  Balsamon,  a  celebrated  canonist,  that  the  Latins 
were  to  be  considered  as  heretics  ;  since,  he  says,  "  they  have 
never  been  synodically  recognized  as  such,  nor  have  they  been 
publicly  cast  out  as  heretics,  but  they  take  their  meals  and  per- 
form their  worship  along  with  us."^ 

(4.)  THE  WESTERN  CHURCH    DID  NOT  UNIVERSALLY    REJECT  THE 

EASTERN. 

When  the   Christians  of  the  West  took  Antioch  from  the 
Saracens  in  1098,  they  restored  to  his  see  John,  patriarch  of 


"  Fleury,  Hist.  Eccl.  liv.  73.  s.  32.      '   - 

c  It  begins :  "  Innocentio  sanctissimo  Papae  Romano,  et  in  Christo  Do- 
mino, dilecto  fratri  nostra,  Johannes,  &c.  .  .  .  amorem  et  pacem  a  Domino 
nostro  J.  C."  .  .  .  He  then  praises  Innocent  for  his  zeal  for  the  union  of 
the  churches,  and  continues  :  "  Quod  autem  mihi  in  tuae  sanctitatis  scripto 
non  modicara  superinduxit  ambiguitatem,  non  abscondam.  Nam  pro  miro 
habeo,  quomodo  unam  et  universalem  Romanorum  vocasti  ecclesiam,  ut 
quasi  jam  divisam  in  species  quasdam  specialissimas,  et  haec,  uno  existente 
grege,  ovilium  Christi,  nobis  quodammodo  pastoribus  sub  eo  constitutis, 
pastorum  principe  communique  doctore.  Et  quomodo  erit  quod  apud  vos 
Romanorum  ecclesia  mater  ut  dixisti  aliarum  ecclesiarum,  et  secundum 
quas  aliquas  rationes  et  per  quas  unquam  causas,  quaere  addiscere  dubitans." 
This  title  he  says  properly  belongs  to  the  church  of  Jerusalem,  and  he 
then  defends  the  Eastern  church  from  the  charge  of  schism. — Epist.  Inno- 
centii  III.  tom.  i.  p.  471.  edit.  Baluzii. 

•ytyivAo-tv,  di.KKa.Kii.)  (run^Qiova-iv  tiy-lv  tcci)  Tuviu'^ovru.i. — Demetr.  Chomaterus,  Re- 
spons.  ad  Constantin.  Cabasilam.  Leo  AUatius,  de  Consens.  lib.  ii.  c.  9.  s. 
3.     Even  Michael  Anchialus,  patriarch  of  Constant.,  though  a  violent  op- 


188  THE  ORIENTAL  CHURCHES.  [p.  I.  CH.  IX. 

Antioch,  and  held  communion  with  him  for  several  years,  until 
he  retired  to  Constantinople  ;"  and  yet  this  prelate  was  in  full 
communion  with  the  Eastern  church.  In  the  middle  of  the  fol- 
lowing century  Peter,  the  Venerable,  abbot  of  Cluny,  in  an 
epistle  to  St.  Bernard,  says,  that  the  Greek  and  Latin  churches 
at  that  time  had  not  separated  from  mutual  charity,  or  made  any 
schism  /  and  accordingly  he  wrote  to  the  Greek  emperor, 
John  Comnenus,  and  to  Constantine,  patriarch  of  Constantino- 
ple, as  members  of  the  catholic  church ;  addressing  the  latter 
as  "  a  venerable  and  great  priest  of  God,"  with  whom  he  holds 
communion  by  the  unity  of  faith  and  chanty,  and  whose  prayers 
and  good  offices  he  solicits  for  himself  and  the  congregation  of 
Cluny ;  offering  to  him  in  return  all  the  spiritual  benefits  which 
they  could  impart.^  It  is  evident  then,  that  the  Western  church 
generally  did  not  reject  the  Eastern  as  heretic  or  schismatic. 

(5.)  It  cannot  be  denied,  however,  that  the  moderate  and 
charitable  sentiments  manifested  by  some  members  of  the 
Eastern  and  Western  churches,  were  not  universal.  The 
patriarchs  of  Constantinople,  and  a  considerable  part  of  the 
Eastern  church,  were  not  merely  satisfied  to  remain  separated 
from  the  communion  of  the  Roman  and  Western  churches, 
which  would  have  been  justifiable  (as  I  shall  prove),  but  gra- 
dually proceeded  so  far  as  to  consider  them  as  schismatics,  or 

ponent  of  the  Roman  pontiff,  admitted  that  the  Latins  had  never  been 
anathematized  as  heretics. — Leo  Allatiiis,  ibid. 

•=  Guil.  Tyrensis,  lib.  vi.  c.  23.    Perpetuite  de  la  Foi,  tom.  i.  p.  196. 

''  "  Nee  apud  modernos,  ipsius  saerificii  Christian!  inter  Graecos  et  La- 
tinos nota  varietas,  charitatern  laedere  vel  schisma  aliquod  unitatis  gig^ere 
potuerit  .  .  .  Cum  hoc  ita  sit,  nee  antiqui  nee  moderni,  propter  tam  cele- 
bres  et  famosas  usuum  dissonantias,  a  charitate  mutua  desciverunt." — Pe- 
trus  Cluniacensis  Abbas,  lib.  v.  cpist.  16  ad  S.  Bernardum. 

g  Petrus  Clun.  lib.  iv.  epist.  39.  ad  Johan.  Imperat.  Constant,  also  epist. 
40.  "  Venerabili  et  magno  pontifici  Dei  Constantinop.  patriarchae  frater 
P  .  .  .  .  Quamvis  et  terree  remotio  et  ling-uarum  divisio,  nobis  invicem  et 
vultus  invideant  et  verba  subducant :  tamen  unus  Dominus,  una  fides,  ununi 
baptisma,  una  charitas,  et  divisa  conjungerc,  et  affectus  unire,  et  sermones 
debent  aliquando  communicare,"  &c. 


SECT.  II.]  DIVISION    OF    THE    EAST    AND    WEST.  189 

even  heretics.  Thus  Theodore  Balsaraon,  and  some  more 
violent  partizans,  rejected  all  the  Latins  as  heretics.^  In  so 
doing  they  offended  against  the  law  of  charity,  yet  it  is  certain 
that  they  were  not  more  cidpable  in  this  respect  than  many  of 
the  Western  churches ;  so  that  while  we  blame  both  parties, 
we  cannot  affirm  that  either  were,  strictly  speaking,  separated 
from  the  catholic  church  of  Christ. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  patriarchs  of  Rome  and  their  imme- 
diate partizans,  as  distinguished  from  the  Western  church, 
generally  regarded  the  church  of  Constantinaple,  and  all  who 
communicated  with  it  as  schismatical,  and  separated  from  the 
cathohc  church,  St.  Bernard  was  of  this  opinion,"  but  it  is 
evident,  that  it  resulted  from  the  exaggerated  notions  which 
he  entertained  on  the  authority  of  the  Romish  church."^ 
Adrian  IV.  of  Rome,  in  his  letter  to  Basil,  of  Thessalo- 
nica,  speaks  of  the  English  church  as  having  separated  from 
the  unity  of  the  church,  and  compares  it  to  the  lost  sheep, 
and  the  lost  piece  of  silver  in  the  parables.^     Innocent  III.,» 


ii  Leo  Allatius,  de  Consens.  &c.  lib.  ii.  c.  9.  s.  3 . 

i  "  Ego  addo  et  de  pertinacia  Graecorum  qui  nobiscum  sunt  et  nobiscum 
non  sunt,  juncti  fide,  pace  divisi :  quanquam  et  in  fide  ipsa  claudicaverint  a 
semitis  rectis." — Bernard,  de  Consid.   ad  Pap.  Eugenium,  lib.  iii.,c.  1. 

^  Bernardus,  de  Consideratione  ad  Pap.  Eugen.  lib.  ii.  c.  8,  where  he 
styles  the  Pope  of  Rome  "  Princeps  episcoporum,  hasres  apostolorum,  po- 
testate  Petrus,  unctione  Christus,"  &c.  "  Nee  modo  oviura  sed  et  pasto- 
rum  tu  unus  omnium  pastor,"  &c.  , 

1  "  Ex  quo  per  invidiam,  hostem  antiquam,  Consfanthiopolitana  sedes 
a  sacrosancta  Romana  et  Apostolica  (quod  sine  lachrymarum  inundatione 
vix  famur)  Ecclesia  seipsam  separavit,  et  hominis  inimicus  proprium 
malitia;  venenum  effudit,  et  a  matris  ohedientia  liheri  secesscruiit  ....  la- 
borem  multum  et  studium .  . .  B.  Petri  successores  adhibuerunt,  ut  schisma  de 
medio  tolleretur,  et  unitati  Ecclesiae,  qui  se  ab  ea  separarunt  redderentur 
....  Ideoque  ad  introductionem  liberorum  in  locum  ecclesiae  et  unitatis, 
inventionemque  amisscB  drackmcB  properemus  .  .  .  illius  exemplo  edocli  qui 
..  .  seipsum  cxinanivit  ut  ovis  amissa  suo  gregi  restitueretur  ...  Da  operam, 
ut  grex  cum  Ecclesia  uniatur,  et  qui  se  ipsos  Dominicas  oves  confitentur, 
ad  gregem  B.  Petri  revertantur,  qui  Domini  jussu  eorum  curam  suscepit.' 
Baronius,  Anno  1155. 

"'  In  his  reply  to  John  Camaterus  patriarch,  of  Constantinople,  Innocent 


190  THE    ORIENTAL    CHURCHES.  [p.  I.  CH.  IX. 

and  the  other  popes  were  of  the  same  sentiments,  as  we  sec 
not  only  by  their  epistles  but  by  their  acts.  Thus,  on  the 
conquest  of  Syria  in  1099,  they  installed  at  Jerusalem  a  Latin 
patriarch,  under  the  obedience  of  the  pope  of  Rome."^  The 
same  was  soon  done  at  Antioch  ;  and  the  see  of  Rome  regu- 
lated all  the  affairs  of  the  Eastern  churches,  not  recognizing 
any  of  the  legitimate  bishops  who  were  in  communion  with 
the  see  of  Constantinople.  When  the  Latins  seized  Constan- 
tinople in  1204,  they  expelled  the  Greek  clergy,  whom  they 
violently  persecuted,  to  induce  them  to  obey  the  Roman 
church  ;°  and  a  Latin  patriarch  and  clergy  were  immediately 
installed. p  They  pursued  the  same  com-se  throughout  all 
Greece,  and  everywhere  treated  the  established  clergy  as 
schismatics. 1      When    Cyprus   came  into   possession  of  the 

extols  the  Roman  primacy  as  of  divine  institution,  and  says,  that  he  who 
will  not  have  the  successor  of  Peter  for  his  pastor,  is  to  be  considered 
alienated  from  the  Lord's  flock — that  the  Roman,  being  by  divine  appoint- 
ment the  head  and  mother  of  all  churches,  no  diversity  of  rites  or  doctrines 
ought  to  prevent  them  from  obeying  the  pope  devotedly  : — that,  however, 
he  means  to  summon  a  general  synod,  and  if  the  patriarch  wdl  come  to  it,  as 
a  member  to  its  head,  and  return  as  a  daughter  to  her  mother^  and  be  ready 
to  pay  due  reverence  and  obedience  to  the  Roman  church,  he  will  receive 
him  as  a  brother,  &c. — Innocent  Epist.  209.  torn.  ii.  p.  472,  &c. 

11  Paschal  ii.  Epist.  IS,  19. 

o  See  Georgius  Acropolita,  cited  by  Allatius,  dc  Consensu,  lib.  2.  c.  13. 
Du  Pin,  Biblioth.  torn.  x.  p.  88. 

p  Innocent  III.  not  content  with  confirming  the  election  of  Morosini,  the 
first  Latin  patriarch,  pretended  to  elect,  confirm,  and  ordain  him  himself; 
and  exacted  an  oath  of  fidelity  and  obedience  in  return  for  the  pall.  He 
also  empowered  him  to  confer  the  pall  on  the  archbishops  subject  to  him, 
and  exact  from  these  also  a  promise  of  obedience  to  the  pope,  and  enjoined 
his  clergy  and  people  to  pay  him  due  and  devoted  obedience,  saving  in  all 
things  the  authority,  reverence  and  honour  of  the  Roman  see. — Gcsta 
Innocentii  Epist.  i.  60,  61.  edit.  Baluzii.  He  had  made  regulations  for  the 
Eastern  patriarchates  of  Antioch  and  Jerusalem  equally  subversive  of  their 
liberty,  requiring  every  patriarch  to  take  an  oath  to  obey  the  pope,  and  that 
he  shall  humbly  defer  to  appeals  to  Rome.  Thus  were  the  schismatic 
Latin  patriarchs  enslaved. 

q  An  anonymous  Greek  writer,  cited  by  Leo  Allatius,  de  Consensu,  lib. 


SECT.    II.]  DIVISION    OF   THE    EAST   AND    WEST.  191 

Latins,  they  expelled  and  cruelly  persecuted  all  the  bishops 
and  clergy  of  the  Eastern  church,  and  crowded  the  island  with 
Latin  clergy."^  The  Roman  pontiffs  approved  and  urged 
these  proceedings  as  the  Eastern  church  was,  in  their  opinion, 
schismatical  and  rebellious,  and  separated  from  the  divinely- 
appointed  centre  of  unity.  This  leads  me  to  the  following 
conclusion. 

(6.)  THE    EASTERN    CHURCHES    WERE     JUSTIFIABLE    IN   REMAIN- 
ING   SEPARATED    FROM     THE    EXTERNAL    COMMUNION    OF    THE 

WEST.  ■  ■         '■ 

The  claims  of  the  Roman  pontiffs  were  in  those  ages  so 
extravagant,  and  their  actual  powers  so  vast,  that  the  Eastern 
church  was  necessarily  condemned  by  them  as  schismatic, 
even  while  it  merely  sustained  its  liberties  according  to  imme- 
morial custom  confirmed  by  the  decrees  of  general  synods. 
Within  twenty  years  after  the  excommunication  of  Cerularius, 
the  celebrated  Hildebrand  filled  the  see  of  Rome. 

That  spiritual  power  which  enabled  him  to  create  and  depose 
emperors  and  kings,  and  exact  their  homage  as  tributaries  and 
subjects  of  the  Roman  see,  was  exercised  to  such  a  degree  in 
the  subversion  of  all  ecclesiastical  liberties,  that  even  Romish 
historians  admit  that  he  extended  his  spiritual  sovereignty 
beyond  its  just  bounds,  and  almost  annihilated  the  whole  power 
of  bishops,  and  the  liberties  of  the  church.^  The  Roman 
church  from  thenceforward  claimed  implicit  submission  from 
all  others.'  All  patriarchs,  archbishops,  and  bishops  were 
required  to  take  oaths  of  obedience  to  the  pontiff,  who  alone 

2.  c.  13,  complains  that  the  Lathis  ejected  the  orthodox  prelates  wherever 
they  could. 

r  The  same  writer  mentioned  in  the  last  note  says,  that  when  the  Greek 

monks  of  Cyprus  refused  suhmission,  the  Latins  tied  them  on  wild  horses  to 

be  dashed  to  pieces,  or  threw  them  into  the  flames.     AUatius  by  no  means 

disapproves  of  such  conduct. 

s  Du  Phi,  History  of  the  Church,  vol.  iii.  century  x.  ch.  10. 

'  "  Subessec  Romano  Pontifici  omni  humanae  creatnrae,  declaramns,  dici- 

mup,  definimus,  et  pronunciamus,  omnino  esse  denecessitate  salutis."  lionifa- 

ciu3  VIII.  in  extravagant.  De  ]\Iajoritate  et  Obedlentia,  cap.  Unam  Sanctam. 


192  THE  ORIENTAL  CHURCHES.  [p.  I.  CH.  IX. 

was  considered  invested  with  the  plenitude  of  spiritual  power, 
which  he  imparted  in  different  degrees  to  all  other  prelates, 
who  were  to  be  regarded  as  merely  his  assistants.     An  unlimit- 
ed right  of  appeal  to  the  Roman  see  was  insisted  on.     The 
confirmation,  ordination,  and  even   the  nomination  of  bishops, 
was    also  claimed  and  to  a   great  extent,  successfully.     The 
decision   of  the   Roman  church  in  matters  of  faith  was  held 
infallible.     The  pope  was  considered  invested  with  an  authority 
supreme,  and  unlimited  by  any  canons  of  general  councils  or 
by  any  customs  or  laws  of  the  church."^     Hence  it  was  assumed 
as  a  matter  of  course,  that  all  who  did  not  receive  ttie  Roman 
faith  were  heretics,  and  all  who  did  not  ohey  the  Roman  see, 
were    schismatics  ;  and  accordingly,  we  find    in  a   series    of 
negotiations  between  the  Greek  emperors  and  the  pontiffs,  for 
the  reunion  of  the  churches,  that  the  first  and  most  essential 
condition   required  by  the  latter  was  uniformly,  "  entire  sub- 
mission and  obedience  to  the  Roman  see." 

Of  this  there  are  innumerable  proofs.  In  1170,  the  emperor 
Manuel  Comnenus  proposed  to  Alexander  III.  to  acknowledge 
the  primacy  of  the  Roman  see,  if  he  would  crown  him  emperor 
of  the  East.""  Michael  Anchialus  who  was  at  this  time  patriarch 
of  Constantinople  says,  that  the  papal  legates  who  came  to  Con- 
stantinople on  the  occasion,  required  nothing  else  from  the  Greek 
church,  but  an  acknowledgment  of  the  primacy  of  the  Roman 
see,  the  right  of  appeals,  and  honourable  mention  in  the  dip- 
tychs."^  The  emperor  Alexis  was  only  restored  to  his  throne 
by  the  Franks,  on  condition  of  reducing  the  Greeks  under  the 
obedience  of  the  Roman  see.""     Innocent  III.  wrote  to  the  Latin 

u  See  Fleury,  Discours  iv.  sur  I'Histoire  Ecclesiastique. 

^  See  Du  Pin,  t.  ix.  p.  128.  204.     Fleury,  Hist.  Eccl.  liv.  71.  s.  35. 

'"  See  the  Dialogue  of  Anchialus  with  the  emperor,  dissuading  him  from 
the  proposed  union,  when  the  papal  delegates  came  twv  iKuKwtZv  ^«to2vt£c  t»v 
'iveeiTiv,  KAi  fxuS'iv  inepv  rt  &7ro  tZv  T^amZv  A.'pra.tTouv'rig,  »  Tra^^t^ofiyiiTeti  tZ  TraTrcf  tZv 
vpiDTiiciiv,  x.3t/  t5;  sxk^x'tou,  S'wvxt  ii  twtui  Kxt  TO  fAViifjioffvvoV'  —  Leo  Allatius,  de 
Consens.  lib.  2.  c  12. 

==  Fleury,  lib.  75.  s.  52. 


SECT.  II.]       ORIENTAL   CHURCHES    NOT    SCHISMATICAL.  193 

bishops  at  Constantinople,  to  urge  Baldwin,  the  Latin  ennperor,  to 
reduce  the  Greeks  under  the  obedience  of  the  holy  see. 5"  His 
legate  at  Constantinople,  with  the  aid  of  the  civil  power,  perse- 
cuted the  Greeks  to  submit  to  Rome.  The  unfortunate  clergy 
and  monks  of  the  Eastern  church,  were  left  no  alternative,  but 
either  to  acknowledge  the  yope  as  head  of  all  the  bishops,  or  to 
suffer  death.^  Alexander  IV.  sent  the  bishop  of  Orvieto  to  the 
emperor  Theodore  Lascaris,  with  "  the  articles  of  submission 
to  the  Holy  See,'''  granted  by  the  Greek  emperor  in  the  time  of 
Innocent  III.^  The  duke  of  Moscovy  in  1246,  seeking  the  title 
of  king  from  the  pontiff,  promised  on  that  condition  to  submit  his 
subjects  to  the  Roman  church.''  In  1277  or  8,  the  pope  sent 
legates  to  engage  the  emperor  Michael  Paleologus  to  cause  the 
acknowledgment  of  papal  primacy,  the  abjuration  of  schism,  and 
a  promise  to  obey  the  Holy  See,  to  be  signed  by  the  patriarch 
of  Constantinople  and  all  the  Eastern  bishops.  These  legates 
were  directed  to  state,  that  the  Romans  were  siirprised'ihat  the 
patriarch  and  other  bishops  had  not  sought  to  be  confirmed  in 
their  sees  by  the  pontiff.'^  The  emperor  constrained  many  of 
the  Greeks  to  acknowledge  the  pope,  but  notwithstanding  this, 
he  was  excommunicated  by  Martin  IV.  for  not  obeying  the  or- 
ders of  his  predecessor,''  and  Pere  Le  Quien  confesses  that  the 
division  in  this  case  was  caused  by  the  pontiff."  In  1.369,  the 
emperor  John  Palsologus  came  to  Italy,  to  solicit  succour 
against  the  Turks  ;   when  he  was  compelled,  as  a  preliminary, 

y  Baronius,  ad  an.  1204. 

I  Georgius  Acropolita,  cited  by  Allatius,  de  Consensu,  lib.  2.  c.  13. 

a  Du  Pin,  Biblioth.  x.  89.  ,        ^  Fleury,  Hist.  liv.  92.  s.  60. 

c  Du  Pin,  Biblioth.  x.  91.  a  Ibid. 

®  "  I  must  say  with  pain,  that  the  union  begun  in  the  second  synod  of 
Lyons  under  Michael  Palajologus  and  Pope  Gregory  X.  would  perhaps  have 
been  permanent,  had  not  certain  of  the  points  agreed  on,  been  derogated  from, 
in  the  time  of  Nicholas  III.  at  the  instigation  of  Charles  king  of  Sicily,  and 
others."  The  Greeks  were  in  short  commanded  to  add  the  Jilioque  to  their 
creed,  contrary  to  the  synod  of  Lyons,  "  which  so  exasperated  their  minds 
against  the  Romans,  that  no  way  was  left  open  to  reconcile  them  to  us." — 
Le  Quien,  Oriens  Glirist.  torn.  i.  p.  157. 
VOL.  I. — 25 


194  THE    ORIENTAL    CHURCHES.  [p.  I.  CH.  IX 

to  sign  a  confession  of  faith,  asserting,  among  other  things, 
"  the  primacy  of  the  Roman  over  the  whole  cathohc  church, 
given  with  the  plenitude  of  power  by  Jesus  Christ  to  St.  Peter, 
of  whom  the  Roman  pontiff  is  the  successor,  to  whom  recourse 
should  he  had  in  all  causes  which  concern  the  church,  to  whom 
all  churches  and  all  bishops  owe  obedience  and  submission, 
&c."f  .        ■ 

The  Roman  pontiffs  therefore  required  from  the  Eastern 
church  as  the  terms  of  communion,  submission,  and  obedience 
to  the  Roman  see,  as  possessed  by  divine  right  of  the  primacy 
of  jurisdiction  over  the  universal  church.  Had  the  Eastern 
church  assented  to  this,  their  liberties  would  have  been  extin- 
guished. Their  patriarchs  and  bishops  would  have  been  bound 
by  oath  to  obey  the  papal  laws.  The  discipline  of  their  churches 
would  have  been  subverted  by  appeals  to  Rome.  Their  most 
established  customs,  even  those  supported  by  the  decrees  of 
general  councils,  would  have  been  annulled  at  the  nod  of  pon- 
tiffs who  claimed  unlimited  and  irresistible  power.  In  fine,  the 
Eastern  church  would  soon  have  been  enslaved  still  more  than 
the  West,  because  the  emperors  were  always  ready  to  sacrifice 
the  liberties  of  their  church  to  any  extent  which  was  necessary 
to  gain  the  aid  of  the  Roman  pontiff,  at  that  time  the  most  powerful 
ruler  of  the  West.  It  would  have  been  any  thing  but  laudable  in 
the  Eastern  church  to  have  accepted  the  communion  of  the  Ro- 
man see  under  such  conditions.  They  would  have  inflicted  a  last- 
ing injury  on  the  church  of  Christ  by  doing  so.  They  would 
have  stimulated  a  spirit  of  aggression  and  usurpation  still  more. 
They  could  not  conscientiously  yield  at  the  demand  of  the  papal 
authority,  which  they  and  the  church  universal  in  every. age, 
deemed  inferior  to  that  of  general  councils,  those  rights  and  liber- 
ties which  general  councils,  approved  by  the  universal  church, 
had  cofirmed  to  them.  In  this  respect,  therefore,  they  are  en- 
tirely free  from  blame,  and  consequently,  even  if  any  one  main- 
tains communion  with  the  Roman  see  as  essential,  generally 

^  Du  Pin.  xi.  95. 


SECT.  II.]       ORIENTAL  CHURCHES  NOT  SCHISMATICAL,  195 

speaking ;  yet  he  must  admit  that  these  churches,  being  exchid- 
ed  from  the  external  signs  of  that  communion  without  their  own 
fault,  were  not  really,  but  only  apparently,  separated  from  the 
church.^  • 

The  sentiments  and  mode  of  argument  common  in  those  ages, 
are  exemplified  in  the  conference  at  Constantinople,  between 
Anselm,  bishop  of  Harvelburg  in  Saxony  (ambassador  from  the 
emperor  Lothaire),  and  Nechitcs,  archbishop  of  Nicomedia.  On 
the  primacy  of  the  Roman  church  Nechites  said,  "  We  do  not 
refuse  her  the  first  rank  among  her  sisters  the  patriarchal  church- 
es, and  we  acknowledge  that  she  presides  in  a  general  council ; 
but  she,  separated  from  us  by  her  pride,  when,  exceeding  her 
power,  she  divided  the  empire,  and  the  churches  of  the  East  and 
West.  When  she  celebrates  a  council  of  Western  bishops 
without  us,  they  ought  indeed  to  receive  and  observe  the  decrees 
made  by  their  own  advice  and  consent ;  but,  as  for  us,  though 
not  divided  from  the  Roman  church  in  faith,  how  could  we  re- 
ceive its  decrees  made  without  our  knowledge  ?  For  if  the  pope 
pretends  to  send  us  his  orders,  fulminating  from  his  lofty  throne ; 
to  judge  and  dispose  of  us  and  our  churches  without  our  advice, 
at  his  own  discretion  and  according  to  his  good  pleasure ;  what 
fraternity  or  what  paternity  is  there  in  that  ?  We  should  only  be 

slaves,  not  children  of  the  church The  Roman  church 

alone  would  enjoy  liberty,  and  give  laws  to  all  others,  without 
being  subject  to  any  herself.  .  .  .  We  do  not  find  in  any  creed 
that  we  are  bound  to  confess  the  Roman  church  in  particular, 
but  one,  holy,  catholic,  and  apostolic  church.  This  is  what  I 
say  of  the  Roman  church,  which  I  revere  with  you,  but  I  do 
not  with  you  believe  it  a  duty  to  follow  her  necessarily  in  every 
thing,  nor  that  we  ought  to  relinquish  our  rites,  to  receive  her 

g  Even  the  Romanist  Milner  says,  "  Nor  is  the  vindication  of  the  rights 
of  an  ancient  church,  at  any  time,  a  denial  of  the  pope's  general  suprema- 
cy."— End  of  Controversy,  Prefatory  Address,  p.  xii.  M.  Trevern,  bishop 
of  Strasburg,  in  his  Discussion  Amicale  (t.  i.  p.  231.),  regards  the  exag- 
gerated opinions  of  the  Ultramontanes  on  the  papal  power,  as  the  principal 
obstacle  to  the  reunion  of  the  Eastern  and  Western  churches. 


196  ARGUMENTS  OF  NECHITES  AGAINST  ROME.     [P.  I.  CH.  IX. 

usage  in  the  sacraments,  without  examining  it  by  reason  or  the 
Scriptures,"  &c.  The  Greek  prelate  altogether  argued  in  a 
very  rational  and  convincing  manner,  but  the  Latin  "  interrupt- 
ed this  discourse,  not  being  able  to  endure,  he  said,  that  the 
Greek  archbishop  should  break  out  so  against  the  Roman' 
church."  He  could  offer  no  reply,  however,  except  to  assure 
him  that  the  most  perfect  reliance  might  be  reposed  in  the  reli- 
gion, sincerity,  equity,  goodness,  &c.  of  the  Roman  church.^^ 

The  Eastern  churches  then  were  perfectly  justified  in  refus- 
ing to  accept  the  proffered  communion  of  the  Roman  see,  and 
of  the  churches  which  it  swayed  in  the  West ;  because  the 
only  terms  on  which  that  communion  could  be  obtained,  were 
unreasonable  and  subversive  of  their  ecclesiastical  rights  and 
liberties,  which  had  descended  from  the  remotest  ages.  The 
Western  churches  were  under  the  dominion  of  the  Roman 
pontiff,  partly  from  an  exaggerated  reverence  for  the  apostolical 
see,  partly  from  fear  of  its  power  ;  therefore  it  was  impossible 
for  them  to  renew  their  communion  vidth  the  Eastern  church  ; 
and  though  not  free  from  blame,  yet  their  condition  exempts 
them  from  the  charge  of  formal  schism. 

(7.)  THE  EASTERN  CHURCHES  ARE  FREE  FROM  HERESY. 

It  would  have  been  absurd  in  the  Western  churches  to  have 
accused  the  Greeks  of  heresy,  after  the  division  in  the  time  of 
Cerularius,  for  they  taught  no  doctrines  w^hich  they  had  not 
taught  for  ages  before,  when  the  East  and  West  were  in  full 
communion.  They  had  uniformly  objected  to  the  addition 
made  to  the  Niccne  Creed  by  the  Western  churches,  and  they 
had  not  on  this  account  been  deemed  heretics.  Yet  this  was 
the  only  point  relating  to  faith  which  was  in  controversy  be- 
tween the  East  and  West,  as  we  learn  from  St.  Anselm,^  from 
Gregory  VII.  of  Rome,''  and  from  his  successor  Innocent  III. 

" — ■ ■         •  -        ■  ^ — — ■ ■ 

''  Fleury,  Hist.  liv.  69.  sect.  42.     This  conference  took  place  in  1137. 
'  Perpetuite  de  la  Foi,  t.  i.  176. 
^  Ibid.  Baronius,  ad  an.  1074.  n.  54. 


SECT.  II.]        ORIENTAL  CHURCHES  NOT  IN  HERESY.  197 

The  latter  speaks  twice  of  the  Procession  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
as  the  only  point  of  difference  between  the  churches  :^  but  this 
difference  had  been  tolerated  for  at  least  two  centuries  before 
the  time  of  Cerularius,  and  the  reason  of  this  was,  because 
the  difference  was  rather  verbal  than  real.  That  it  was  so,  is 
maintained  by  the  Master  of  the  Sentences,  by  Thomas  Aqui- 
nas, Bandinus,  Bonaventure,  Scotus,  Grosteste,  among  the 
scholastics,  and  in  more  modern  times  by  Bellarmine,  Clich- 
tovasus,  Tolletus,  Azorius,  Fricius,  Thomas  a  Jesu  of  the 
Roman  communion,  and  by  Field,  Laud,  and  other  Anglo- 
catholic  theologians.™  Therefore  both  the  Eastern  and  the 
Western  churches  are  free  from  heresy  in  the  question  of  the 
Procession. 

It  may  be  objected,  that  the  Eastern  churches  are  heretical, 
since  they  have  not  received  the  definitions  of  faith  concerning 
the  papal  primacy,  purgatory,  &c.  made  in  the  several  synods 
of  Lyons,  Florence,  &;c.  :  but,  as  I  shall  elsewhere  prove  (in 
Part  IV.),  these  synods  did  not  possess  sufficient  authority  to 
make  absolutely  binding  decrees  in  controversies  of  faith  ;  and 
if  the  Eastern  churches  were  a  part  of  the  catholic  church  at 
all,  their  consent  was  absolutely  necessary  to  give  validity  to 
those  synods  ;  for  the  Western  churches  were  not  evidently 
greater  and  more  numerous  than  the  Eastern,  and  therefore 
their  acceptance  of  the  above  synods  was  not  a  sufficient  proof 
of  the  approbation  of  the  majority  of  the  catholic  church. 
This  position  is  of  so  much  importance  that  it  deserves  a  more 
particular  notice. 

'  Innocentii  III.  Epist.  lib.  vii.  154.     See  also  Raynaldus,  an.  1205. 
n.  10. 
"•  See  Field,  Of  the  Church,  p.  50,  &c.     Laud,  Conference,  s.  9. 


198  THE  ORIENTAL  CHURCHES.      [p.  I.  CH.  IX. 

(8.)  THERE  IS  NO  REASON  TO  SUPPOSE  THAT  THE  WESTERN 
CHURCH  WAS  GREATER  THAN  THE  EASTERN,  AT  THE  PERIOD 
OF  THE  SEPARATION,  OR  THAT  THE  NUMBER  OF  ITS  BISHOPS 
EXCEEDED  THOSE  OF  THE  EASTERN  CHURCH. "^ 

The  ancient  churches  of  the  countries  which  were  at  this 
time  divided  between  the  Eastern  and  Western  church,  were 
about  equally  numerous  on  each  side. 

According  to  the   "Notitia,"  compiled  in  the  time  of  the 
patriarch  Phocius,  and  the  emperor  Leo  Sapiens,  about  a.d. 
891,  compared  with  other  accounts  collected  by  Bingham,  the 
Asiatic  bishoprics  under  the  patriarchate  of  Constantinople,  in- 
cluding the  province  of  Isauria,  taken  from  the  patriarchate  of 
Antioch,    were  in ,  number  432  ;   the  European  bishoprics  in 
Illyricum,  Dacia,  Thrace,  Macedonia,  Greece,  &c.  were  160  ; 
those  under  the  patriarchs  of  Antioch   and  Jerusalem  were 
240  ;  under  the  patriarch  of  Alexandria,  108  ;  in  Cyprus,  15  ; 
making  a  total  of  955,  besides  the  dioceses  in  Armenia,  Ass5^ria, 
Chaldea,  and  other  dominions  of  the  Persians,  in  which  alone 
twenty-four  bishops  suffered  martyrdom  about  the  same  time  ; 
and  among  the  Homerites  under  the  archbishop  of  Teplira, 
the  Indians  and  the  Saracens,  who  had  probably  a  bishop  in 
each  tribe.     It  will  not  be  unreasonable  to  calculate,  that  there 
might  be  seventy  bishops  in  these  different  barbarous  nations 
beyond  the  Roman  empire  ;  so  that  we  may  state  the  whole 
'  mimber  of  the  Eastern  dioceses  at  upwards  of  1020.     Let  us 
now  turn  to  the  Western  church.     In  Africa  there  were  466 
bishoprics,  in  the  time  of  St.  Augustine ;  in  Italy,  Sicily,  and 
the  adjoining  isles,  293  ;  in  Spain,  76  ;  in  Gaul  and  Germany, 

"  [One  of  Mr.  Palmer's  critics  has  seemed  disposed  to  lay  stress  on  this 
paragraph,  as  evincing  the  insufficiency  of  his  mode  of  procedure  for  arriv- 
ing at  a  satisfactory  conchision  as  to  the  claims  of  a  church  or  churches. 
But  whatever  may  be  thouglit  of  liis  arithmetical  argument,  it  is  merely 
ex  abundantia.  The  catholicity  of  the  Oriental  churches  has  been  even 
more  than  sufficiently  sustained  without  it.] 


SECT.  II.]        GREATNESS  OP  THE  ORIENTAL  CHURCHES.  199 

to  the  Rhine,  122  ;  in  Britain  and  Ireland,  perhaps  nearly  70; 
making  also  a  total  of  upwards  of  1020  sees.  Such  was  the 
ancient  state  of  the  Eastern  and  Western  churches,  as  nearly 
as  possible  equal  in  numbers.  In  fact,  it  is  impossible  to  de- 
termine which  was  the  more  numerous  or  great. 

But  it  will  be  alleged,  that  many  of  these  ancient  Eastern 
bishoprics  had  been  lost  before  the  eleventh  century,  by  the 
invasions  of  the  Saracens,  and  by  the  Nestorian  and  Eutychian  . 
heresies.  It  is  true,  that  great  losses  had  been  sustained  from 
these  causes,  but  it  is  quite  uncertain  whether  the  Western 
church  had  not  suffered  equally. 

Africa,  with  its  466  churches,  had  disappeared  from  Christi- 
anity. Spain,  Sicily,  Corsica,  Sardinia,  were  occupied  by  the 
Saracens.  In  Italy  itself,  the  depopulation  was  so  great,  from 
the  inroads  of  barbarians  and  infidels,  that  not  nearly  one-half  of 
the  bishoprics  remained  in  those  parts  which  had  been  most 
populous.  It  is  uncertain  what  losses  the  Eastern  church  may 
have  sustained  by  this  time,  but  it  is  scarcely  probable  that  they 
were  greater  than  those  of  the  West. 

It  is  certain  that  Christianity  long  continued  to  maintain  itself 
in  the  East,  under  the  Saracens.  Le  Quien,  in  his  "  Oriens 
Christianus,"  mentions  the  names  of  many  bishoprics,  as  occur- 
ring occasionally  in  the  history  of  the  times,  and  doubtless 
others  which  he  has  not  noticed  may  yet  be  disclosed  by  further 
researches,  while  many  may  remain  hid  in  obscurity. 

But  perhaps  it  may  be  said,  that  the  new  conversions  of  the 
barbarous  nations  of  the  West  must  be  considered  to  have  ffiven 
the  Western  churches  the  superiority  in  number.  The  Saxons, 
Germans,  Poles,  Danes,  Swedes,  and  Norwegians,  had  certainly 
now  been  added  to  the  Western  church,  though  Christianity 
was  still  very  imperfectly  settled  in  some  of  these  nations. — 
But  if  the  Western  church  had  made- converts,  the  Eastern  was 
not  less  successful.  The  Greeks  had  converted,  or  received  into 
their  communion,  the  Bulgarians,  Sclavonians,  Aretani,  Servi- 
ans, Gazarians,  Mffisians,  Bohemians,  Moravians,  Hungarians, 
Transylvanians,  Moldavians,  Wallachians,  and  (what  alone  was 


200  THE    ORIENTAL    CHURCHES.  [p.  I.  CH.  IX. 

equal  to  all  the  conversions  of  the  West,)  the  Russians.  There 
is  therefore  no  probability  that  the  Eastern  church,  in  the  mid- 
dle of  the  eleventh  century,  and  even  long  afterwards,  fell  short 
of  the  Western,  either  in  the  number  of  its  bishops,  the  extent 
of  its  jurisdiction,  or  the  number  and  variety  of  the  nations  it 
embraced.  It  is  impossible  to  determine  precisely  the  number 
of  bishops  on  each  side  ;  but  there  is  neither  proof  nor  presump- 
tion, that  the  majority  of  the  church  took  part  with  the  Roman 
pontiff  against  the  Greeks  ;  and  it  is  impossible  to  afiirm,  with 
any  certainty,  that  the  Western  churches  were  greater  than  the 
Eastern,  up  to  the  period  of  the  Reformation. 


OBJECTIONS    OF    ROMANISTS. 

I.  The  Greeks  are  proved  schismatics,  by  the  simple  fact 
that  they  are  not  in  communion  with  the  Roman  see  ;  for  this 
communion  is  absolutely  essential  by  the  institution  of  Jesus 
Christ. 

Ansioer.  (1.)  I  deny  that  communion  with  the  Roman  see, 
more  than  any  other,  is  absolutely  required  by  Christ,  as  I  shall 
prove  elsewhere.  (2.)  Romanists  cannot  maintain  it  to  be  es- 
sential, because  they  do  not  admit  the  pontiff  to  be  absolute  and 
infallible,  in  all  matters  ecclesiastical  and  spiritual ;  but  if  com- 
munion with  him  is  absolutely  necessary,  he  must  be  infallible, 
and  free  from  the  possibility  of  fault. 

II.  The  Eastern  church  has  not  unity  of  doctrine,  because 
(1.)  Methodius,  archbishop  of  Twer  (1805),  in  a  Latin  work, 
edited  by  authority  of  the  holy  synod,  testifies  that  many  of  the 
Russian  clergy  incline  to  the  Calvinistic  discipline  ;  and  calls 
Calvin  a  great  man,  praises  his  books,  and  cites  them  in  testi- 
mony of  the  faith  of  the  Muscovites.  (See  D.  de  Maistre,  Du 
Pape,  t.  ii.  p.  561.)  (2.)  The  Greek  church  has  also  changed 
her  doctrines  in  many  points  ;  thus,  formerly,  she  admitted  the 
primacy  of  the  pontiff,  and  believed  the  Holy  Ghost  to  proceed 
from  the  Son,  but  now  rejects  these  doctrines.     (Bouvier.) 


SECT.  II. J  OBJECTIONS.     .  201 

Answer.  (1.)  In  the  place  cited  (Methodius,  p.  168),  the 
archbishop  probably  only  refers  to  the  opinions  of  the  dissenters 
from  the  Russian  church  ;  but  admitting  that  he  alludes  to  mem- 
bers of  that  church,  I  ask  whether  there  are  not  also  clergy  of 
the  Roman  churches  who  are  inclined  to  Calvinism,  or  Jansen- 
ism, which  is  the  same  thing  ?  Methodius  indeed  calls  Calvin 
a  great  man,  but  he  blames  him  for  "daring  to  administer  sacred 
things"  without  ordination.  The  truth  is,  that  Calvin  was  a 
man  of  great  ability  and  no  inconsiderable  learning  ;  and  Ro- 
manists themselves  are  exceedingly  glad  to  cite  him  in  proof  of 
their  doctrines,  whenever  they  can.  (2.)  The  Eastern  church 
has  not  varied  on  the  primacy  ;  for  she  does  not  deny  that  the 
pontiff  might  fairly  be  considered  the  first  bishop,  according  to 
the  customs  and  synods  of  the  church  ;  but  she  has  never  admit- 
ted that  this  primacy  is  divino  jure.  The  Eastern  church  does 
not  substantially  differ  from  the  West,  on  the  procession,  as 
we  have  seen. 

III.  The  Eastern  church  has  not  unity  of  ministry ;  for  the 
four  patriarchs  are  independent  of  each  other,  and  the  Russian 
church  of  all ;  therefore  they  do  not  constitute  one  fold,  under 
one  shepherd.    (Bouvier.) 

Answer.  There  is  but  one  Head  of  the  church  according  to 
divine  appointment,  who  is  invisible,  but  who  administers  the 
affairs  of  his  church  by  the  body  of  pastors  who  succeed  the 
apostles.  It  will  elsewhere  be  proved  that  there  is  no  visible 
head  of  the  whole  church,  of  divine  or  human  appointment. 

IV.  They  have  not  unity  of  jurisdiction ;  for  they  have  no 
supreme  and  infallible  authority,  the  patriarchs  being  indepen- 
dent ;  and  a  general  council  cannot  be  convened  or  enforced. — 
(Bouvier.) 

Ansiuer.  They  are  guided  by  the  ancient  decisions,  laws, 
canons,  and  customs  of  the  church,  which  each  bishop  adminis- 
ters ;  and  each  patriarch  takes  cognizance  of  all  causes  in  his 
patriarchate.  The  primitive  church  directed  all  causes  to  be 
terminated  in  provincial  synods  ;  and  it  could  scarcely  ever  be 
VOL.  I.— 26 


202  THE    ORIENTAL    CHURCHES.  [P,  I.  CH.  IX. 

necessary  to  convene  general  synods,  or  seek  the  judgment  of 
the  whole  church  in  questions  of  discipline. 

V.  The  Greeks  probably  have  not  sanctity,  because  this 
sanctity  is  chiefly  to  be  proved  by  miracles ;  but  the  Greeks 
cannot  prove  such,  or  at  least  not  more  numerous  than  in  the 
Latin  church. 

Ansiuer.  (1.)  The  Greeks  claim  miracles  with  as  much  ap- 
parent reason  as  the  Romanists."  (2.)  If  they  had  none,  they 
might  still  be  a  part  of  the  catholic  church  ;  because  no  particu- 
lar portion  of  the  church  is  promised  miracles,  or  bound  to  show 
them. 

VI.  Its  founders  were  not  holy,  that  is  Photius  and  Cerularius ; 
for  their  immoderate  ambition  in  assuming  the  title  of  CEcu- 
menical  Patriarch,  led  to  the  separation. 

Answer.  (1.)  Photius  and  Cerularius  did  not  found  the  East- 
ern church.  (2.)  Bingham  proves  that  the  title  of  Ecumenical 
Patriarch  was  given  to  the  Patriarch  of  Constantinople  by  Jus- 
tinian, more  than  three  hundred  years  before  the  time  of  Photius, 
and  five  hundred  before  that  of  Cerularius. p  (3.)  The  separa- 
tion is  attributable  as  much  to  the  Roman  patriarch's  ambition, 
as  to  that  of  the  patriarch  of  Constantinople. 

VII.  The  Eastern  church  has  not  produced  such  eminent 
saints  as  the  Western  church. 

Ayiswer.  All  the  greatest  saints  of  antiquity  were  of  the 
Eastern  church  ;  as  Ignatius,  Polycarp,  Clement  of  Alexan- 
dria, Gregory  Thaumaturgus,  Alhanasius,  Basil,  Gregory 
Nazianzen,  Gregory  Nyssene,  Cyril,  and  others  too  numerous 
to  mention.  The  missionaries  of  the  Eastern  Church  con- 
'  verted  to  the  faith  many  heathen  nations ;  as  the  Russians,  Bo- 
hemians, Poles,  Moravians,  Wallachians,  Moldavians,  Bulga- 
rians, &c.  &c. ;  and,  according   to  modern  historians,  many 


»  See  Nectarii  Hierosol.  Confutatio  Imperii  Papa;  (p.  30G,  307.  321 — 
332),  where  a  multitude  of  miracles  are  claimed  for  the  Oriental  churches. 

p  Le  Quien  also,  in  his  Oriens  Christianus,  torn.  i.  p.  67,  shows  that  the 
patriarchs  of  Constantinople  were  styled  Oecumenical  Patriarchs,  in  the 
reign  of  Justin,  518,  and  in  536,  as  weU  as  by  Justinian. 


SECT.    11.]  OBJECTIONS.  203 

exafnples  of  virtue  and  piety  are  to  be  found  among  them. 
Their  monastic  institute  is  more  strict  than  that  of  the  Latins, 
and  has  not  degenerated  into  the  luxury  and  immorahty  which 
is  found  in  many  of  the  Latin  convents. i 

VIIL  It  is  not  universal,  having  no  societies  in  Africa  or 
America.     (Bouvier.) 

Answer.  There  are  churches  in  communion  with  the  East- 
ern churches  in  North  America  and  Egypt ;  but  I  do  not  pre- 
tend that  the  Eastern  churches  alone  are  churches  of  Christ, 
therefore  they  do  not  require  universality. 

IX.  The  Greek  church  is  not  apostolical,  for  she  bears  mani- 
fest indications  of  change  ;  e.  g.  she  was  formerly  for  many 
ages,  united  and  subject  to  the  Roman  church,  but  afterwards 
separated  from  her  :  then  the  union  of  the  churches  having 
been  twice  completed  in  the  synods  of  Lyons  and  Florence,  the 
Greeks  twice  departed  from  that  union. 

Answer  (L)  It  is  denied  that  the  Greek  church  was  subject 
to  the  Roman  jurisdiction  at  any  time.  (2.)  The  separation 
was  as  much  the  fault  of  the  Roman  as  of  the  Greek  church. 
(3.)  The  Separation  of  the  Greeks,  after  the  synod  of  Lyons, 
was  caused,  as  Pere  le  Quien  says  (Oriens  Christ,  tom.  i.  p. 
157),  by  the  unreasonable  conduct  of  the  Roman  pontiff,  in 
requiring  conditions  which  the  synod  of  Lyons  had  not  required. 
(4.)  The  Eastern  churches  judged  the  terms  of  reconciliation, 
conceded  by  some  of  their  bishops,  who  attended  the  synod  of 
Florence,  to  be  unreasonable  and  improper  ;  and  they  were  not 
bound  by  the  decrees  of  that  synod  in  any  respect,  as  it  was 
not  truly  oicumenical. 

OTHER    OBJECTIONS. 

X.  The  Eastern  churches  practice  the  invocation  of  saints, 
but  this  is  contrary  to  Scripture  ;  therefore  they  cannot  form 
part  of  Christ's  church. 

1  See  Smith  on  the  Gk.  Church.      . 


204  THE    ORIENTAL   CHURCHES.  [p.    I.    CH.  IX. 

Answer.  Though  we  found  long  ago,  by  experience,  that 
this    custom   leads  to   the    grossest    superstition    among   the 
unlearned  ;  yet  the  practice  of  invoking  the  saints  to  pray  for 
us  to  God,  is  rather  superfluous,  and  tending  to  idolatry,  than 
actually   idolatrous   (strictly   speaking) ;  and  therefore   cannot 
exclude  the  Eastern  churches  from  the   catholic  community. 
It  is  not  directly  and  formally  prohibited  by  Scripture,  and  the 
practice  is  of  such  antiquity  in  their  churches,  that  we  cannot 
absolutely  condemn  the  Eastern  catholics  for  supposing  that  it 
is  allowable.     Besides  this,  our  theologians.  Hooker,  Bramhall, 
Andrewes,  &c.  allow  the  Roman  to  be  a  true  church,  though 
they  well  knew  that  this  invocation  is  practiced  there. 

XI.  They  pay   a  relative    honour  or  worship  to   pictures, 
which  is  idolatrous. 

Ansiver.  I  grant  that  it  approaches  toward  idolatry,  and  in 
some  instances  doubtless  must  become  actually  idolatrous,  be- 
cause the  ignorant  cannot  distinguish  between  the  '  latria '  due  only 
to  the. divine  nature,  and  the  inferior  degree  of  honour,  which  the 
second  synod  of  Nice  attributes  to  images,  and  which  is  sup- 
posed to  pass  to  the  original.     But  still  as  they  maintain  that 
divine  worship  is    only  due  to   God,  and  an  inferior  honour  to 
the  cross  and  to  images,  they  cannot  b,e  charged  with  formal 
idolatry,  in  principle  or  universally  ;  and  therefore,  while  with 
the  whole  Western  church,  from  the  time  of  Charlemagne,  and 
with  the  synod  of  Frankfort,  we  reject  all  worship  of  images 
whatsoever,  there  is  no  reason  why  we  should  not  also,  as  they 
did,  admit  the  Eastern  church  to  be  a  part  of  the  catholic  com- 
munity.     We  must  also  consider,  that  the  Orientals  imagine 
through  a  mistake  in  the  question  of  fact,  that  the  universal 
church  enjoined  the  veneration  of  pictures  in  the  second  synod 
of  Nice,  which  I  shall   prove  hereafter  not  to  have  been  truly 
oecumenical,  nor  of  any  binding  authority.     But  their  mistake 
is  founded  on  arguments  of  no  inconsiderable  weight. 

XII.  They  maintain  the  doctrine  of  transubstantiation  in  the 
eucharist,  and  therefore  camiot  be  a  part  of  the  Christian 
church. 


SECT.  II.]  OBJECTIONS. — TR.\NSUCSTANTIATION.  205 

Ansiver.  (1.)  Admitting  that  they  use  the  term  transubstan- 
tiation,  and  that  many  of  them  receive  the  doctrine  in  the  Ro- 
mish sense,  it  is  not  certain  that  all  do.  Archbishop  Plato 
says :  "  Ecclesia  Catholica  Orientalis,  et  Gra^co-Russica, 
admittit  quidem  vocera  Transubstantiatio,  Greece  f^srova-laa-ii ; 
non  physicam  illam  transubstantiationem  et  carnalem,  sed 
sacramentalem  et  mysticam ;  eodemque  sensu  hanc  vocem 
Transubstantiatio   accipit,   quam    quo    antiquissimi    Ecclesiag 

Gra3Ca3    patres    has    voces    /tt£T«AAs«yjj,  f^eretha-K;,     fA£Tcc.a-roix,el»'!-i<i 

accipiebant."'^  It  would  seem  as  if  the  term  transubstantiation 
was  employed  by  him  merely  to  signify  a  real  change,  and  a 
real  presence,  not  to  define  its  mode.  Methodius,  archbishop 
of  Twer,  uses  language  with  reference  to  the  eucharist,  incon- 
sistent with  the  Roman  doctrine  of  transubstantiation,  which 
denies  the  eucharist  to  be  bread.  He  says  the  disciples  "  come- 
derant  panem  et  biberant  vinum,  Christo  utrumque  conse- 
crante  et  praebente  ;  idque  ea  lege,  ut  primum,  hunc  cibum  ct 
potum  sumentes,  se  sumere  corpus  et  sanguinem  Domini  cre- 
derent,  deinde  ut  hoc  in  commemorationem  sive  gratam  memo- 
riam  Domini,  facerent."^  (2.)  The  Romish  doctrine  of  tran- 
substantiation is  an  error,  but  it  is  not  an  error  of  such  a  sort  as, 
in  the  judgment  of  our  theologians,  ought  to  prevent  communion. 
Bishop  Burnet  says  :  "  We  think  that  neither  consubstantia- 
tion  nor  transubstantiation,  however  ill-grounded  soever  we 
take  them  to  be,  ought  to  dissolve  the  union  or  communion  of 
churches."*       Archbishop    Bramhall  places    the    doctrine  of 

r  See  the  answer  of  Plato,  Archbishop  of  Moscow,  to  M.  Dutens,  on  tlie   i' 
doctrines  of  the  Oriental  church. — Dutens,  CEuvres  Melees,  part  ii.  p.  171. 
ed.  1797.     This  answer  is  referred  to  as  of  high  authority  by  Methodius, 
Archbishop  of  Twer,  in  the  preface  to  his  "  Liber  Historicus  de  rebus  in 
Primitiva  Ecclesia." 

s  Mcthodii  Liber  Histor.  p.  207. 

t  Burnet  on  the  xxviiith  article,  near  the  end.  The  Lutherans'  doctrine 
of  Consul)stantiation,  and  the  ubiquity  of  Christ's  body,  is  quite  as  much  an 
error  as  the  Komish  doctrine  of  Transubstantiation,  yet  they  are  not  usually 
accounted  heretics. 


206  OBJECTIONS. TRANSUBSTANTIATION.       [p.    I-  CH.    IX. 

transubstantiation  among  "the  opinions  of  the  schools,  not 
among  the  articles  of  our  faith. ""^  And  besides  this  our  theo- 
logians generally,  as  Hooker,  Andrewes,  Bramhall,  &c.  ac- 
knowledge the  Roman  to  be  a  part  of  the  true  church,  though  it 
is  manifest  that  the  doctrine  of  transubstantiation  is  held 
there. 

"  Bramhall,  Answer  to  Militiere,  p.  1. 


CHAPTER  X. 


ON    THE    BRITISH    CHURCHES. 


The  catholic  and  apostolical  churches  of  England,  Scotland, 
and  Ireland,  are  the  parent  stock  from  whence  many  flourishing 
churches  of  Christ  have  been  derived  in  the  United  States,  the 
Islands,  and  other  parts  of  North  America  ;  in  Hindostan, 
Ceylon,  Australia,  and  other  parts  of  the  East ;  and  even  in 
Africa,  congregations  and  pastors  are  to  be  found,  who  have 
derived  their  Christianity  and  their  authority  from  our  churches. 
I  propose  to  show  in  this  chapter,  that  the  British  churches  form 
a  portion  of  the  catholic  church  of  Christ ;  and  that  every  indi- 
vidual within  their  district  is  bound  to  unite  himself  to  them,  as 
being  exclusively  and  solely  the  way  of  salvation  established  by 
divine  authority  amongst  us.  This  will  be  chiefly  proved  by 
applying  all  the  notes  of  the  true  church  to  our  part  of  it,  and 
showing  that  in  every  particular  they  entirely  accord  with  it. 

I.  The  chwches  of  Britain  and  Ireland  have  been  visible 
societies  from  the  most  remote  antiquity. — We  read  of  the  exist- 
ence of  Christian  churches  in  Britain,  in  the  writings  of  Ter- 
tullian,  Origen,  Eusebius,  Athanasius,  and  Hilary.''  Theodo- 
ret  attributes  their  foundation  to  the  apostles  ;^'  but,  however 
this  may  be,  it  is  at  least  certain,  that  they  were,  even  from  the 
second  century,  recognized  as  a  portion  of  the  great  Christian 
community,  by  all  churches.  In  the  year  314,  the  bishops  of 
London,  York,  and  Lincoln,  sat  as  representatives  of  the  British 

a  TertuUian  contr.  Judaeos,  c.  7.  Origen.  in  Ezech.  hom.  iv.  in  Luc.  c. 
1.  hom.  vi.  Athan.  Apologia.  Hist.  Arian.  ad  monaehos.  Hilariiis  Pictav. 
de  Synodis.  See  also  Slillingflcet's  Antiquities  of  the  British  Churches, 
Usserii  Brit.  Eccl.  Antiquitates. 

''  Theodorct,  torn.  iv.  Serm.  ix.  p.  610. 


k 


208  THE  BRITISH   CHURCHES,  [p.  T.  CH.  X. 

churches  in  the  synod  of  Aries,  convened  by  the  emperor  Con- 
stantine  from  all  the  Western  churches,  to  take  cognizance  of 
the  Donatist  controversy. °     In  the  year  359,  the  British  bishops 
were  present  at  the  synod  of  Ariminum,  where  bishops  from  all 
parts  of  the  West  were  assembled.*^     In  the  following  century 
the  British  churches  still  continued,  and  they  were  aided  in  their 
efforts  to  repress  the  Pelagian  heresy,  by  Germanus  and  Lupus, 
bishops  of  Gaul,  who  were  sent  for  that  purpose  by  the  Galilean 
synod,  and  perhaps  with  the  authority  of  Coelestinus,  bishop  of 
Rome.''     About  the  same  time  (432),  the  Irish  churches  were 
founded  by  Patrick,  who  was  consecrated  bishop  by  Coelesti- 
nus ;  ^  and  these  churches  were  acknowledged  immediately,  by 
by  all  the  Christian  world,  to  form  part  of  the  catholic  church. 
The  British  churches  were  afterwards  subject  to  severe  persecu- 
tion and  depression,  in  consequence  of  the  invasion  and  subjuga- 
tion of  England  by  the  heathen  Saxons.     Christianity  for  a  time 
flourished  only  in  the  Western  parts  of  Britain  ;  but  it  still  con- 
tinued in  some  degree  visible  even  among  the  heathen  invaders.^ 
In  the  following  century,  the  venerable  Augustine  was    sent 
by  Gregory  the  great,  bishop  of  Rome,  to  convert  the   Anglo- 
Saxons,  which  the  British  churches  had  been  unable  to  effect ; 
and  by  his  exertions,  several  churches  were  either  founded  or 

«  Sirmond.  Concilia  Gallic,  torn.  i.  p.  9. 

<5  Sulpicius  Severus,  Hist.  Eccl.  lib.  ii. 

e  Beda,  Hist.  Eccl.  lib.  i.  c.  17.  Prosper,  Chronicon.  aim.  429.  Stil- 
lingfleet  argues,  and  apparently  with  reason,  that  these  bishops  were  sent 
by  the  Galilean  Synod  only.     Antiq.  p.  192. 

<■  [It  is  surprising  that  Mr.  Palmer  should  implicitly  allow  this  exploded 
feble.  Very  little  is  known  concerning  Patrick  with  any  certainty  ;  but  that 
little  is  all  adverse  to  the  supposition  that  he  had  any  connexion  with  Rome. 
This  has  been  proved  (inter  aliis)  in  the  British  Magazine,  Vol.  VHI.  259. 
s.  1.  399  ss.  609  ss.] 

s  Seven  British  bishops  assembled  and  conferred  with  St.  Augustine. — 
Beda,  Hist.  Eccl.  lib.  ii.  c.  2.  Theonus  was  bishop  of  London,  and  Tha- 
diocus  of  York  among  the  Saxons,  about  a.  d.  586. — Usserii  Brit.  Eccl. 
Antiq.  c.  5.  Kentigern,  about  the  same  time,  ruled  the  British  churcli  in 
Glasgow  and  Cumberland. — Ibid.  c.  14,  ]5. 


SECT.   I.]  ANTIQUITY  OF  THE  BRITISH  CHURCHES.  209 

revived,  before  or  about  the  year  600,  such  as  the  churches  of 
Canterbury,  Rocliestcr,  London,  &c.^  Many  other  churches 
were  founded  among  the  Anglo-Saxons  by  Irish  missionaries  ; 
such  as  the  churches  of  Lindisfarn,  or  Durham,  Lichfield, 
York,  &c.'  In  fine,  Scotland  received  Christianity,  and  visible 
churches  were  founded  there  by  the  Irish  and  Saxon  churches.'' 
Some  disagreements  between  the  ancient  British  and  Saxons 
having  been  removed  ;  the  church  was  perfectly  united  in  all 
parts  of  Britain  and  Ireland,  and  was  acknowledged  by  all  the 
Christian  world,  as  a  branch  of  the  catholic  church.  These 
societies  continued  always  to  exist  :  history  records  their  acts 
in  every  age;  the  ordination  of  their  bishops,  the  synods  which 
they  held  for  the  correction  of  abuses,  and  the  enforcement  of 
discipline  ;^  the  charters  of  monarchs  confirming  in  many  ages 
their  liberties  and  rights,  their  convocations,  their  reformation, 
the  dangers  and  persecutions  which  they  have  suffered,  their 
adversity  and  their  prosperity.  All  our  churches  were  origi- 
nally founded  by  the  labours  of  holy  missionaries,  who,  in  obedi-^ 
ence  to  the  divine  command,  having  received  their  commission 
from  the  church  of  Christ,  came  into  these  lands,  and  gathered 
churches  of  Christ  from  amidst  their  heathen  inhabitants.  The 
societies  thus  formed  by  peaceful  derivation  from  the  Christian 
body,  or  by  incorporation  with  it,  and  in  no  case  by  separation 
from  a  more  ancient  Christian  society,  have  in  all  ages,  without 
interruption,  continued  visibly  to  profess  Christ,  to  administer 
Christian  rites  and  sacraments,  to  be  guided  by  a  ministry  pro- 
fessing to  be  Christian  and  apostolical,  and  to  add  continually 
new  members  to  themselves  by  baptism.  No  other  Christian 
societies  formerly  existed  in  these  countries,  from  which  our 
churches  separated  themselves  originally,  and  acquired  existence 

^  See  Godwin  "  de  Praesulibus  Angliae."  ' 
•  Beda,  Historia,  lib.  iii.  c.  3.  5,  6.  21,  22. 
^  Beda,  lib.  iii.  c.  4. 

'  See  Wilkins'  "  Concilia  Magnae  Britanniae,"  where  the  acts  of  the  Bri- 
tish churches  are  recorded  in  regular  succession,  from  a.d.  440  to  a.d.  1717. 
VOL.  I. — 27 


210  THE  BRITISH  CHURCHES.  [p.  I.  CH.  X. 

by  the  act  of  separation.  The  church  of  Canterbury  has  contin- 
ued as  a  Christian  society  in  unbroken  succession  for  more  than 
twelve  centuries  ;™  that  of  Armagh  has  existed  for  fourteen  cen- 
turies -f^  those  of  Menevia  and  others  in  Wales,  for  at  least  the 
same  time  ;  and  all  these  churches  were  derived  by  spiritual 
descent,  and  fraternal  association,  from  the  still  more  ancient 
and  apostolical  churches  of  Britain,  Gaul,  and  Rome.  It  may 
be  objected,  indeed,  that  our  churches  departed  from  their  an- 
cient faith,  or  were  separated  from  the  rest  of  the  catholic  church 
at  the  Reformation.  That  is  a  different  question,  and  must  be 
separately  considered  :  but  the  fact  is  beyond  all  possibility  of 
dispute  :  it  is  as  certain  as  the  truth  of  Christianity  itself,  that 
these  churches  have  always  continued  as  visible  societies,  in  un- 
broken succession  from  the  very  earliest  ages  of  Christianity. 
They  may  be  called  heretical,  schismatical,  apostate  or  any 
thing  else  :  but  their  perpetuity  as  visible  societies  professing 
Christianit}'' ;  their  antiquity,  superior  by  full  thirteen  centu- 
ries to  all  those  that  surround  them  ;  are  matters  of  fact  so  ab- 
solutely certain,  that  he  who  denies  them  must  be  prepared  to 
deny  all  historical  truths  whatever. 

II.  The  British  churches  preserve  unity  of  communion 
mnojig  themselves  and  in  each  particular  church ; — their  doc- 
trine requires  it ;  their  practice  promotes  it.  Every  member  of 
these  churches  is  taught  that  the  commandment  of  God  requires 
him  to  submit  himself  to  his  governors,  teachers,  and  spiritual 
pastors^"  Each  of  these  pastors  is  obliged  "  reverently  to  obey 
his  ordinary,  and  other  chief  miriisters,  unto  whom  is  committed 
the  charge  and  government  over  them."P  Each  bishop  is  bound 
to  "  correct  and  punish  such  as  be  unquiet,  disobedient,  and 

■"  See  the  catalogue  of  all  its  archbishops  in  Godwin  "  de  Praesulibus 
Angliae."  More  than  a  hundred  and  fifty  bishops  in  regular  succession 
from  St.  Peter  to  the  present  time,  have  presided  over  the  primitive  Roman 
church,  and  over  that  of  Canterbury,  derived  from  it  in  the  sixth  century. 

"Sir  James  Ware's  history  of  the  Irish  bishops,  with  additions  by  Harris. 

"  Catechism  in  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer. 

p  Ordinal,  of  priests  and  deacons. 


SECT.  II.]        ANTIQUITY  OF  THE  BKITISH  CHURCHES.  211' 

criminous  within  his  diocese.''^     Thus  it  is  evident,   that  the 
church  of  England  requires  and  provides  for  unity  and  order 
within  all  her  boundaries.     Besides  this  she  docs  not  hesitate  to 
denounce  those  who  separate  from  her  as  guilty  of  a  most 
grievous  sin.     Her  canons  pronounce  that  "  whosoever  shall 
hereafter  separate  themselves  from  the  communion  of  saints,  as 
it  is  approved  by  the  apostles'  rules  in  the  church  of  England, 
and  combine  themselves   together  in  a  new  brotherhood,"   ac- 
counting the  church  of  England  unfit  to  be  joined  with  in  Chris- 
tian profession,  shall  be  excommunicated,  and  not  restored  till 
"  after  their  repentance   and  public  revocation   of  such  their 
wicked  errors.''''^     Those  even  who  shall  maintain  such  schis- 
matics, and  allow  them  the  name  of  a  Christian  church,   are 
equally  excommunicated  by  the  church  of  England.^     Schism 
is  condemned  in  every  way.     Its  authors,   its  maintainers,  its 
conventicles,  the  supporters  of  its  laws,  rules,  and  orders,  are  all 
subjected   to    excommunication,  and  regarded  as  "  wicked."' 
Can  any  more  convincing  proof  be  afforded  that  the  church  of 
England  provides  assiduously  for  the  maintenance  of  entire 
unity  of  communion  ?  I  have  before  shown  that  her  theologians 
teach  the  necessity  of  adhering  to  the  unity  of  the  church  ;  and 
this  arises  from  the  firm  belief  of  all,  that  salvation  is  only  oifer- 
ed  in  that  church."     But  this  is  not  the  whole.     The  church  of 
England,  by  her  principles  nips  in  the  bud,  or  prevents  all  pre- 
tences for  disturbance  or  separation.     She  declares  that  who- 
ever "through  his  private  judgment  willingly  and  purposely  doth 
openly  break  the  traditions  and  ceremonies  of  the  church,  which 
be  not  repugnant  to  the  word  of  God,  and  be  ordained  and  ap- 
proved by  common  authority,  ought  to  be  rebuked  openly," 
&C.;''  and  the  canons  subject  them  to  excommunication."^     She 


^  Consecration  of  bishops.  ■■  Canon  ix.  1603. 

s  Canon  x.  '  Canon  ix. — xii. 

"  See  above,  Chapter  IV.  sect.  ii.  art.  iv.  ;  and  Chapter  I.  sect.  iii.  on 
Salvation  in  the  Church  only. 
"  Article  XXXIV.  «'  Canon  xxvii.  1603. 


212  THE    BRITISH    CHURCHES,  [p.  I.   CH.  X. 

holds  that  "  any  particular  or  national  church  hath  authority  to 
ordain,  change,  and  abolish  ceremonies  or  rites  of  the  church 
ordained  only  by  man's  authority,  so  that  all  things  be  done  to 
edifying."''  In  fine,  she  declares  that  "  the  church  has  power 
to  decree  rites  and  ceremonies,  and  authority  in  controversies  of 
faith.">'  Now  it  is  evident  that  these  principles  are  calculated 
altogether  to  prevent  disturbance  and  schism.  The  dissenter, 
Micaiah  Towgood,  confesses  that  "  if  the  church  hath  really 
this  authority  and  power,  then  all  objections  of  the  dissenters 
about  sponsors,  the  cross  in  baptism,  kneeling  in  the  Lord's 
Supper,  and  every  other  thing,  are  impertinent  and  vain  :  the 
church  having  this  authority,  ought  reverently  to  be  obeyed."^ 
The  church  however  unquestionably  claims  this  power,  whether 
well  or  ill-founded,  and  therefore  her  principle  is  altogether  sub- 
versive of  schism  and  separation.  That  she  docs  claim  it  is 
shown  by  Towgood  himself,  who  remarks,  that  although  it  is 
said  in  the  twentieth  article  that  "  the  church  may  not  ordain 
any  thing  contrary  to  God's  word,  nor  so  expound  one  Scrip- 
ture as  to  be  repugnant  to  another,  yet  of  this  repugnance  and 
contrariety  the  church  alone,  you  will  observe,  and  not  every 
private  person,  is  allowed  to  be  the  proper  judge  :  for  other- 
wise the  article  is  absurd  ;  it  actually  overthrows  itself,  and  takes 
away  with  one  hand  what  it  gives  with  the  other,"  &c.  He 
admits  that  "  it  does  claim  for  the  church  some  real  authority," 
&c.^  Such  are  the  principles  of  unity  maintained  by  the  Bri- 
tish churches.  They  may  be  accused  of  severity  by  those  who 
do  not  believe  as  she  does,  that  salvation  is  offered  only  in  the 
church,''  and  that  she  herself  is  decidedly  and  unquestionably 
the  church  of  God  in  these  countries. 

III.  These  churches  also  continue  in  the  unity  of  the  com- 
munion with  respect  to  the  rest  of  the  catholic  church. — It  is, 
and  always  has  been,  an  article  of  their  belief,  that  there  is  a 

^  Article  XXXIY.  y  Article  XX. 

*  Towgood  on  Dissent,  p.  2.  "  Ibid.  p.  6,  7. 

''  See  Chapter  I.  section  iii. 


SECT.  III. J  UNITY  OF  THE   BRITISH   CHURCHES.  213 

visible  and  universal  church  of   Christ,  out.  of  Avhich  there  is 
no  salvation  :*=  consequently  they  must  believe  it  in  the  highest 
degree  sinful  to  separate  from  the  universal  church  ;  and  if 
separation  from  a  particular  national  church  is   sinful  in  their 
opinion,  how  much  more  must  be  a  separation  from  all  the 
church  ?     Hence  it  is  altogether  improbable  that  these  churches 
should   ever   themselves   have   separated  from    the  universal 
church ;  because  their  own  principles  would  at  once  condemn 
them.     Is  it  credible  that,  if  they  had  voluntarily  departed  from 
the  catholic  church,  they  should   continue  always  to  profess 
their  "  belief"  in  that  "  catholic  church,"  to  pray  for  its  "  good 
estate,"  to  desire  its  "unity,"  to  entreat  that  it  may  be  "ruled 
and  governed  in  the  right  way,"  to  confess  that  it  acknow- 
ledges "  throughout  all  the  world  "  the  holy  and  ever-blessed 
Trinity  ?     How  improbable  is  it,  if  we  had  separated  ourselves 
from  the  universal  church,  that  we  should  make  so  many  con- 
fessions condemnatory  of  ourselves  !     The  church  of  England, 
in  fact,  does  not  imagine  for  a  moment  that  she  has  ever  sepa- 
rated from  the  catholic  church,  or  been  separated  by  its  autho- 
rity.    We  altogether  reject  the   former  notion,  as  totally  un- 
founded ;    without   the  shadow  of  a   proof.     It  is  evident  to 
those  who  have  perused  her  history,  that  the  church  of  Eng- 
land  never  did  at  any  time,   by  any  voluntary  act  whatever, 
separate  herself  from  the  communion  of  the  universal  church.'^ 
We  defy  our  adversaries  to  produce  such  an  act.     Let  them 
name  any  English  synod,  any  article,  any  authentic  document 
whatever,  which  proves  that  the  church  of  England  did,  either 
in  act  or  intention,  voluntarily  separate  or  cut  herself  off  from 
the  communion  of  the  rest  of  the  universal  church.     No  such 
act  has  been,  or  ever   can  be  produced.     All  that  is  pretended 
by  our  adversaries  is,  that  our  churches  are  separated  from  the 
communion  of  the  Roman  pontiff,  and  therefore  must  necessa- 

■^  See  Chapter  III.  ad  fincrn^  and  the  place  referred  to  in  the  preceding 
note, 
d  See  Part  II.  Chapter  II. 


214  THE    BRITISH  CHURCHES.  [p,  I.  CH.  X. 

rily  be  cut  off  from  the  church  of  Christ.     Before  they  can 
prove  this,  however,  they  must  show  that  the  Roman  pontiff  is 
by  divine  institution  the  centre  of  unity  in  such  a  sense,  that 
wlioever  is  not  in  his   communion  must  be   cut  off  from  the 
church  of  Christ.     This  would  take  a  very  long  time  to  prove, 
and  would  lead  to  a  controversy  of  so  much  difficulty,  as  ren- 
ders it  apparently  unfit  to  be  adduced  among  the  notes  of  the 
church  ;  but  what  is  a  more  serious  difficulty  is,  that  our  oppo- 
nents cannot  consiste.ntly  argue  thus,   for  they  admit  that  the 
Roman  pontiffs   are  liable  to  error  in  doctrine  and  discipline, 
and  to  ambition,  anger,  pride,  injustice,  avarice,  in  a  word,  to 
all  the  passions  and  infirmities  of  human  nature.     The  separa- 
tion between  the  pontiff  and  our  churches  may  have   arisen 
from  such   faults  on  his  part,   and  therefore  we  may  be  alto- 
gether blameless.     If  this  is  denied,  then  the  pontiff  must  be 
impeccable  and  infallible  ;    and,   moreover,  must  be  invested 
with  all  power  temporal  as  well  as  spiritual,  which  is  absurd, 
and  denied  by  all  our  adversaries.     "  Who,"  says  the  learned 
Du  Pin,   doctor  of  the   Sorbonne,  "would  say  that  Meletius, 
Cyril,  and  the  other  Orientals  who  supported  him,  were  schis- 
matics because   they  did  not   communicate  with  the  Roman 
church  ;  or  who,  on  the  contrary,  would  not  confess  that  Pau- 
linus  and  his  adherents   incurred  the  peril  of  schism,  though 
they    were  in    communion  with  the  Roman    church  ?     Who 
would  dare  to  say,  that  Athanasius  and  the  rest  were  schisma- 
tics, and  the  Arians  in  the  church,  because   Liberius  admitted 
the  latter  to  his  communion,  and  rejected  the  former  ?     No  one 
ever  held  Atticus  of  Constantinople,  and  all  the  Oriental  patri- 
archs, schismatics  and  excommvmicated,  although  they  vteie  for 
a  time  divided  from  the  communion  of  the   Roman  church."^ 
Therefore  nothing  can  be  more  vain  and  futile  than  the  pretence 
that  we  are  necessarily  schismatical  because  we  are  not  in  com- 
munion with  the  Roman   see.     Those  who  charge  us  with 
schism  on  this  account,  have  no  resource  but  to  look  at  facts, 

«  Du  Pin,  de  Antiq.  Eccl.  Disciplina,  p.  2^. 


SECT.  III.]     BRITISH  CHURCHES  FREE  FROM  SCHISM.  215 

and  prove  that  the  church  of  England  originally  separated  vo- 
luntarily from  the  communion  of  the  Roman  pontiff.  But  this 
they  cannot  do.  The  church  of  England  removed  the  juris- 
diction of  the  pontiff,  but  did  not  separate  from  his  communion. 
The  act  of  excommunication  was  entirely  on  his  part,  and  if, 
long  afterwards,  measures  were  taken  by  the  civil  power  to 
prevent  communication  with  the  Roman  see,  it  was  as  a  measure 
of  self-defence,  caused  by  its  restless  intrigues  for  the  subjuga- 
tion of  our  churches,  and  the  control  of  our  state. 

Nor  is  it  any  proof  whatever  that  our  churches  are  schisma- 
tic, to  allege  that  they  are  not  actually  in  communion  with  the 
rest  of  the  catholic  church  :  because  I  have  before  proved  that 
there  is  no  impossibility  in  the  supposition,  that  different  por- 
tions of  the  catholic  church  may  for  a  time  be  separated  from  . 
mutual  communion.^  Our  churches  may  therefore  be  a  portion 
of  the  one,  holy  catholic  church,  though  they  are  not  actually 
in  external  communion  with  the^  greater  part  of  it.  The  sim- 
ple fact  of  non-communion  is  unavailing  to  prove  us  in  schism. 
It  must  be  proved  that  these  churches  have  separated  from  all 
the  rest,  or  that  all  the  rest  have  by  some  regular  judgment  ex- 
communicated them.  Neither  can  be  proved.  I  have  already 
denied  the  former,  and  defied  our  adversaries  to  produce  a 
shadow  of  proof  for  it.  I  also  deny  that  the  great  body  of  the 
church  ever  excommunicated  our  churches.  It  has  been 
already  shown,  that  neither  the  Eastern  nor  the  Western 
churches  were  excommunicated  by  any  binding  decree  up  to 
the  period  of  the  Reformation."  Consequently  the  British 
churches  were  not  cut  off  from  the  catholic  church  up  to  the 
Reformation  ;  but  at  that  time,  whatever  decrees  or  judgments 
were  made  by  some  Western  churches  in  respect  of  ours,  were 
not  confirmed  or  received  by  the  Eastern  churches,  who  re- 
mained exactly  in  the  same  position  towards  us  that  they  had 
previously  done.  Consequently  there  could  not  have  been  any 
degree    of   excommunication  passed  by  the  catholic  church 


'  Chapter  IV.  section  iii.  See  last  chapter. 


216  THE  BRITISH   CHURCHES.  [p.  I.  CH.   X. 

against  us  at  the  period  of  the  Reformation  ;  and  besides  tliis, 
we  know  that  the  theological  opinion  then  prevalent  in  the 
Western  churches  was,  that  the  Roman  see  was  absolutely 
and  always  the  centre  of  unity ;  whence  they  adjudged  us 
schismatics  merely  on  this  prejudice,  without  examining  the 
cause  ;  and  their  judgment  was  accordingly  informal,  null, 
and  void. 

IV.  The  British  churches  continue  in  the  unity  of  faith,  both 
as  regards  themselves  and  the  rest  of  the  catliolic  church. — 
The  principle  of  the  church  of  England  with  respect  to  faith 
is,  that  "  whosoever  will  be  saved,  before  all  -things  he  must 
believe  the  catholic  faith,  which  faith,  except  every  one  do  keep 
whole  and  undefiled,  without  doubt  he  shall  perish  everlast- 
ingly."^^ She  accordingly  regards  heretics  as  cut  off  from  the 
church,  and  out  of  the  way  of  salvation.  This  I  have  also 
shown  to  be  the  doctrine  of  our  most  eminent  theologians.^  It 
does  not  seem  possible  that  the  necessity  of  an  orthodox  faith 
can  be  more  strongly  enforced  by  a  church.  But  she  is  not 
contented  with  this  ;  she  makes  provision  for  preserving  the 
unity  of  faith  by  her  practice.  No  one  is  admitted  to  her  com- 
munion by  baptism  until,  cither  by  himself  or  his  sponsors,  he 
promises  "  to  believe  all  the  articles  of  the  Christian  faith.'"' 
Her  children  are  all,  from  the  earliest  age,  diligently  instructed 
in  the  divine  truths  of  religion,  by  pastors  especially  authorized 
by  the  church :  and  thus  the  catholic  doctrine  is  infused  into 
their  minds  not  by  reasoning,  but  by  authority.  In  order  to 
secure  still  more  the  unity  of  faith,  it  is  provided  that  all  her 
members  shall  hear  and  assent  to  several  creeds  and  formula- 
ries of  catholic   faith  in  her  various  offices  ;^  and  unite  in  the 


h  Athanasian  Creed  in  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer.  The  eighth  arti- 
cle says  of  this  and  the  other  creeds,  that  they  "ought  thoroughly  to  be 
received  and  believed :  for  they  may  be  proved  by  most  certain  warrants 
of  holy  Scripture." 

i  Chap.  V.  sect.  ii.  art.  4.  t  Office  for  Baptism. 

'  e.g.\\iQ  Nicene,  Apostolic,  and  Athanasian  Creeds. 


SECT.  IV.]  UNITY  OF  THE   BRITISH   CHURCHES.  217 

profession  of  all  the  Christian  doctrines,  which  are  assiduously 
interwoven  in  all  her  prayers,   anthems,  hymns,   &c.™     The 
clergy  themselves  are   required  by  her   customs  to  subscribe 
their  assent,  without  any  reservation  whatever,  to  the  body  of 
faith  and  religious  truth  contained  in  the  thirty-nine   articles  of 
religion.     So  that,  in  every  imaginable  way,  these  churches 
teach  the  necessity  of  receiving  the  whole  uncorrupted  truth 
of  Christianity,  and  provide  effective  means  for  it  among  them- 
selves.    And  further,  we   do  not  in  any  degree  separate   our- 
selves from  the  common  faith  of  the  catholic  church.     We  do 
not  pretend  to  found  our  faith  on  our  interpretation  of  Scrip- 
ture alone,  to  the  exclusion  of  the  doctrine  cr  tradition   of  the 
church  universal.     Far  from  it.     The  injunction  of  the  English 
church  to  her  preachers  is,  that  they  "  shall  not  teach  any  thing 
to  be  religiously  held  or  beheved,  except  what  agrees  with  the 
doctrine  of  the  Old  or  New  Testament,  and  what  the  catholic 
fathers  and  ancient  bishops  have  collected  from  the  same  doc- 
trine,""    This  recognizes  most  fully  the  guidance  of  tradition 
in  matters  of  faith  ;  and  in  matters  of  discipline  the  same  is 
also  admitted  ;    for  the  three  orders  of  the  sacred  ministry  are 
received  by  the  church  of  England,   because   their   apostohc 
antiquity  i^  proved  by  "ancient  authors,"  as  well  as  "holy 
Scripture  ;"    and  because  they  "  were   evermore  had  in  reve- 
rend estimation  in  the  church."°     In  short,  the  reverence  of  the 
church  of  England  for  the  tradition  of  the  universal  church  in 
all  matters  of  doctrine  and  discipline,  is  so  manifest,   and  the 
consent  of  her  theologians  at  all  times   so  perfectly  accordant 
with  the  same  sentiment,  that  the  Lutheran  Walchius  accounts 
"  the   Episcopalians,"  (he  means  the  catholics  of  the  church 
of  England,)  "excessive  in  their  reverence  for  the  fathers."? 


•  m  Arians  and  Socinians  bitterly  complain  of  this,  and  urge  the  aheration 
of  the  ritual  by  force,  in  order  to  divest  it  of  those  distinctive  doctrines  of 
Christianity  with  which  it  abounds. 

0  Canons^  1572.  o  Preface  to  the  Ordinal. 

P  See  Part  II.  Chapter  YI.  "  On  the  Principles  of  the  English  Refor- 
mation." 

VOL.  I.— 28 


218  THE  BRITISH  CHURCHES.  [P.  I.  CH.  X. 

Hence  the  church  of  England  has  a  fixed  rule  to  guide  her  in 
the  interpretation  of  Scripture,  and   a  rule  which  is  acknow-   • 
ledged  also  by  all  the  rest  of  the  catholic  church.     And  hence 
it  is  very  probable  that  in  reality  she  agrees  in  all  matters  of 
faith  with  other  churches,  for  she  admits  the  same  rule  ;  and  at 
all  events  it  is  not  to  be  supposed,  that  acknowledging  as  she 
does,  the  authority  of  catholic  tradition,  she  should  designedly 
or  evidently  contradict  it  by  her  doctrines.     Were  the  doctrines 
of  the  ancient  fathers  and  councils,  and  generally  those  of  the 
universal  church,   clearly  condemnatory  of  her  doctrines ;  did 
they  universally  esteem  matters  of   faith,   what  she   esteems 
error  or  heresy;  would  it  not   follow  that  the  church  of  Eng- 
land, or  at  least  her  theologians,  must  in  process  of  time  have 
revolted  against  antiquity,  and  represented  it  as  entirely  unwor- 
thy of  credit  ?     We  know  what  the  universal  conduct  of  those 
who  esteem  the  tradition  of  the   church  opposed  to  their  doc- 
trines, has  been.     The    Socinians,   the   Independents,   and  all 
other  dissenters,  in  a  word,  almost  all  other  "  denominations  " 
calling  themselves  Christian,   deride,  despise,  and  reject  the 
traditions  of  the  universal  church.     They  decry  them   as  the 
doctrines  of  men,  and  endeavour  by  all  means  to  prevent  an 
appeal  to  them.     How  widely  different  is  the  conduct  of  the 
church  of  England,  and  the  whole  body  of  her  eminent  theolo- 
gians, who  are  only  desirous  to  follow  in  the  footsteps  of  an- 
ti([uity,  and  ever  ready  to  give  an  answer  to  any  one  that  ask- 
eth  them  concerning  their  adherence  to  the  doctrines  of  the  uni- 
versal church  ! 

But  there  is  another  principle  of  the  church  of  England,  which 
is  in  the  highest  degree  calculated  tb  preserve  her  in  unity  of 
faith.  That  principle  is  contained  in  the  twentieth  article  : — 
"  The  church  hath  .  .  .  authority  in  controversies  of 
FAITH  :"  that  is,  not  only  have  national  churches  the  power  of 
defining  the  faith  for  their  own  members  ;  but  national  churches 
themselves  are  subject  in  matters  of  faith  to  the  superior  au- 
thority of  the  universal  chmxh.  The  opponents  of  the  church 
of  England  cannot  deny  that  she  really  claims  authority  for  the 


SECT.  IV.]   BRITISH  CHURCHES  FREE  FROM  HERESY.        219 

church.     The  dissenter  Towgood  admits  it,"i  and  the  Romanist 
Milner  is  compelled  by  the  force  of  truth,  in  contradiction  to  the 
impudent  assertions  of  many  of  his  brethren,  to  make  the  con- 
fession that  our  churches  do  admit    authority  in   the   church. 
"  You  do  very  right,  sir,"  he  says  to  Dr.  Sturges,  "  in  classing 
Protestants  with  Catholics,  w^hen  you  speak  of  those  who  admit 
a  proper  autliority  in  the  church  ....  with  respect  both  to 
faith  and  fights ;  as  it  is  easy  to  show  that  this  is  no  less  the 
doctrine  of  the  church  of  England  than  it  is  of  catholics,  from 
the  writings  of  her  most  learned  divines,  from  her  present  es- 
tablished terms  of  communion,    (The  church  hath  power  to 
decree  rites  and  ceremonies,  and  authority  in  controversies  of 
faith,  Art.  XX,  inter.  39,)  and  from  her  repeated  practice  in 
holding  synods  at  home,  and  in  sending  representatives  to  those 
abroad,  particularly  to  the  famous  synod  of  Dort,  in  the  reign  of 
James  I.  when  we  all  know  that  religious  questions  were  de- 
cided in  as  high  a  tone  of  authority,  as  they  were  in  the  council 
of  Trent."r     Now  admitting,  as  we  do,  the  authority  of  the 
church  generally ;   is  it  credible,  is  it  possible,  that  we  could 
designedly  or  knowingly  oppose  ourselves  to  the  judgments  and 
decisions  of  the  universal  church  ?     Surely  not.     The  church 
of  England  could  never  have  established,  or  at  least  retained, 
such  a  principle,  if  she  was  not  firmly  convinced  that  the  au- 
thority of  the  church  is  not  against  her.     It  may  be  supposed, 
perhaps,  that  she  is  mistaken  as  to  the  question  of  fact.     Some 
opinion  which  she  holds  may  be  imagined  really  to  have  been 
condemned  by  the  universal  church  :  but,  if  so,  the  church  of 
England  does  not  know  it ;  she  is  persuaded  to  the  contrary  by 
strongly  probable  reasons  ;   but  the  authority  of  the  universal 
church,  when  clearly  manifested,  she  never  rejects.    Therefore 


1  On  dissent,  p.  5,  6. 

r  Milner's  Letters  to  a  Prebendary,  Lett.  IL  Tlie  last  assertion  is  not 
strictly  correct,  as  the  church  of  England  did  hot,  in  fact,  send  any  deputies 
to  the  synod  of  Dort.  They  were  sent  by  King  James  I. ;  and  the  act  of 
this  monarch  alone,  could  not  bind  the  church  of  England. 


220  THE    BRITISH    CHURCHES.  [p.  I.   CH.  X. 

it  is  impossible  to  deny,  that  in  principle  at  least,  we  depart  not 
in  the  slightest  degree  from  the  unity  of  the  catholic  faith  ;  and 
if  it  comes  to  the  question  of  fact,  whether  we  really  do  receive 
all  the  doctrines,  and  allow  all  the  definitions  made  by  the  au- 
thority of  the  universal  church  ;  I  reply,  without  the  least  doubt 
or  hesitation,  that  xoe  do.  The  church  of  England,  in  fact,  re- 
jects every  doctrine  that  the  universal  church  has  condemned, 
and  believes  every  thing  which  that  church  has  declared  to  be 
an  article  of  faith  ;  and  as  a  member  of  the  church  of  England, 
and  in  the  strictest  conformity  with  her  principles,  I  receive 
every  decree,  council,  doctrine,  which  the  catholic  church  re- 
ceives ;  and  anathematize  every  heresy  xohich  she  anathema- 
tizes. It  is  not  to  be  supposed  credible,  that  the  church  of 
England,  which  maintains  such  principles  as  I  have  spoken  of, 
can  be  in  any  heresy  contrary  to  the  faith.  But  I  proceed  to 
adduce  further  proofs  of  this,  from  the  circumstance  that  her 
doctrine  has  never  been  condemned  by  the  catholic  church.  It 
is  pretended  that  our  doctrines  were  condemned  by  the  church, 
at  the  synod  of  Trent.  Now  admitting  that  there  is  an  opposi- 
tion, in  some  points,  between  the  decisions  of  that  assembly 
and  those  of  the  English  synod,  we  can  easily  prove  that  the 
vmiversal  church  made  no  judgment  in  that  synod ;  for  the 
Eastern  churches  and  our  own  were  neither  present  there,  nor 
ever  received  its  decrees.  The  church  universal  therefore  made 
no  judgment  in  that  synod  ;  and  although  the  greater  part  of  the 
Western  church  received  its  decrees,  this  is  not  to  be  taken  as 
any  proof  of  the  judginent  of  the  Western  churches  ;  for  it  is 
capable  of  positive  proof,  that  at  that  time  theological  opinions 
were  universally  prevalent  among  them,  which  rendered  it  im- 
possible for  them  to  take  cognizance  of  the  controversy  in  a 
legitimate 'manner,  that  is,  to  examine  its  merits  ;  and  therefore, 
that  their  reception  of  the  synod  of  Trent,  was  a  mere  registra- 
tion of  the  decrees  of  a  certain  number  of  bishops  assembled 
there,  and  not  the  approving  judgment  of  the  Western  church.^ 


^  See  Part  IV.  Chap.  XII.  where  the  authority  of  the  synod  of  Trent  is 


discussed  at  large. 


■'«■ 


SECT.  IV.]      BRITISH  CHURCHES  FREE  PROM  HERESY.  221 

As  to  the  other  Western  synods  which  were  previously  held, 
and  which  are  said  to  contradict  our  doctrine,  we  are  prejAred 
to  show,  that  they  were  merely  particular  synods,  not  confirmed 
by  catholic  authority  ;  and,  moreover,  that  several  of  those  ob- 
jected, in  no  degree  diflfer  from  our  doctrine.*  This  is  the 
position  we  sustain :  but  to  enter  into  a  particular  examination 
whether  it  is  well  or  ill-founded,  cannot  be  requisite  to  deter- 
mine whether  the  church  of  England  is  a  portion  of  the  catholic 
church  ;  because  it  would  lead  to  lengthened  investigations, 
which  must  be  impossible  to  the  great  majority  of  men.  Suffice 
it  to  say,  that  we  are  j^repared  to  prove  that  the  catholic  church 
has  never  condemned  any  doctrine  which  we  maintain.  This 
being  the  case,  there  can  be  no  presumption  of  our  heresy  in 
any  point.  •       ■ 

It  may  be  alleged,  however,  that  the  English  does  actually 
differ,  in  several  points  of  doctrine,  from  the  Oriental  and  Latin 
churches  ;  and,  therefore,  that  either  one  party  or  the  other  must 
be  in  heresy.  But  I  have  proved  before,  that  there  may  be 
some  differences  of  doctrine  between  particular  churches  ;  and 
that  even  under  very  peculiar  circumstances,  these  differences 
may  extend  to  matters  of  faith,  without  heresy .^^  Consequently 
the  mere  fact  of  differences  in  religion,  proves  nothing  as  to  the 
heresy  (5f  either  party  ;  and  the  English  and  other  churches 
which  differ  in  some  points  from  her,  may  yet  all  be  connected 
by  the  unity  of  the  catholic  faith.  To  prove  that  either  of  them 
is  separated  from  this  unity,  we  must  enter  into  a  most  exten- 
sive examination  of  doctrines  in  controversy,  with  a  view  not 
merely  to  ascertain  what  the  truth  of  Revelation  really  is,  but  to 
determine  whether  it  is  believed  or  denied  by  particular  churches  ; 
or  whether  the  difference  is  apparent  rather  than  real,  whether 
it  is  a  difference  between  individuals  or  churches;  finally, 
whether  it  is  obstinately  maintained.  The  inconvenience  of 
such  a  process,  and  its  unsuitableness  to  the  great  mass  of  man- 
kind, for  the  discovery  of  the  true  church,  is  sufficiently  obvious. 

'  See  Part  IV.  .       "  Chapter  V.  section  iii. 


222  .  THE   BRITISH    CHURCHES.  [p.  I.  CH.  X. 

In  fine,  our  adversaries,  however  reluctantly,  are  obliged  to  bear 
witness  to  the  general  orthodoxy  of  our  faith.  The  very  points 
on  which  we  are  assailed  by  some  Romanists,  are  relinquished 
by  others.  The  points  of  difference  are  acknowledged  to  be 
but  few,  by  some  of  their  most  noted  and  learned  writers  ;^  and 
the  church  of  England  is  triumphantly  cleared  from  heresy,  on 
every  point,  by  their  confessions.  Are  we  charged  by  Bossuet 
with  denying  the  authority  of  the  church,  and  rendering  it  sub- 
servient to  the  civil  power?  Milner  replies  to  him,  that  the 
church  of  England  holds,  in  these  points,  the  principles  of  the 
catholic  church."^  Are  we  accused  of  denying  the  real  presence  ? 
Milner  and  Hornyhold  acknowledge  our  perfect  belief  of  that 
doctrine. "^  I  will  not  here  dwell  at  length  on  these  things  ;  it  is 
sufficient  to  add,  that  the  articles  of  the  church  of  England  have 
been  approved,  in  almost  all  points,  by  Davenport,^'  and  Du 
Pin  ;^  and  that  various  Romanists  of  note  have  held  the  differ- 
ence between  us  to  be  so  small,  as  to  render  a  re-union  of  the 
churches  by  no  means  impossible.''     All  this  proves  that,  al- 


"  O'Conor,  Dr.  Doyle.     See  also,  the  "  Essay  towards  a  Proposal  for 
Catholic  Comnmnion,"  reprinted  and  commended  by  Papists. 

*  Milner's  Letters  to  a  Prebendary,  Lett.  IL 

X  Ibid.  Lett.  VIIL     Hornyhold's  Real  Principles  of  Catholics,  p.  243. 

y  Franc.  Davenport,  al.  a  S.  Clara,  Paraphrastica  Exposit.  Artie.  Confess. 
Anglicanae.     See  also  Barnes,  Catholico-Romanus  Pacificus. 

^  Mosheim,'  Eccl.  Hist.  vol.  vi.  where  the  heads  of  Du  Pin's  Commoni- 
torium  are  stated  in  the  correspondence  relative  to  Archbishop  Wake. 

■''  Especially  the  late  Dr.  Doyle,  who  in  his  letter  to  Robertson  (See 
Catholic  Miscellany,  1824,  p.  234,  &c.)  observed :  "  This  union  is  not  so 
difficult  as  appears  to  many.  It  is  not  difficult ;  for  in  the  discussions  which 
were  held,  and  the  correspondence  which  occurred  on  this  subject  early  in 
the  last  century,  as  well  that  in  which  Archbishop  Tillotson  (Wake)  was 
engaged,  as  the  others  which  were  carried  on  between  Bossuet  and  Leib- 
nitz, it  appeared  that  the  points  of  agreement  between  the  churches  were 
numerous  ;  those  on  which  the  parties  hesitated  few,  and  apparently  not  the 
most  important.  The  effisrt  which  was  then  made  was  not  attended  with 
success ;  but  its  failure  was  owing  more  to  princes  than  priests ;  more  to 
state  policy,  than  a  difference  of  belief.''''     He  states,  that  the  chief  points 


>'"». 


SECT.  IV.]         SANCTITY  OF  THE  BRITISH  CHURCHES.  223 

though  Romanists  remain  separate  from  our  churches,  and 
accuse  them  of  heresy,  there  is  no  certainty  of  the  justice  of 
such  an  imputation,  even  among  themselves.  But  there  is  one 
other  way  in  which  the  adversaries  of  our  churches  all  bear 
testimony,  involuntarily,  to  their  orthodoxy  on  all  points.  The 
cause  of  the  church  is,  in  every  point  of  controversy,  defended 
by  a  number  of  those  who  have  separated  from  her.  The  au- 
thority which  she  claims  for  the  church  of  Christ,  and  for  which 
she  is  vehemently  assailed  by  dissenters,  is  supported  by  Ro- 
manists. Her  doctrines  are  defended  against  Romanists  by 
dissenters,  against  dissenters  by  Romanists,  and  by  one  sect  of 
dissenters  against  another.  It  has  long  been  the  privilege  of 
the  catholic  church,  to  derive  confirmation  to  her  faith,  from  the 
dissensions  of  those  around  lier.  So  it  was  in  the  days  of  St. 
Hilary  of  Poictiers,  and  so  it  still  continues  to  be.  "  All  the 
heretics  advance  against  the  church  ;  but  while  they  all  prevail 
against  each  other,  they  prevail  not  at  all ;  for  their  victory  is 
but  the  triumph  of  the  church  over  all,  since  each  heresy  is  con- 
tending against  some  other,  on  account  of  its  condemnation  of 


in  discussion  are,  the  canon  of  the  sacred  Scripture,  faith,  justification,  the 
mass,  the  sacraments,  the  authority  of  tradition,  of  councils,  the  pojje,  the 
celibacy  of  the  clergy,  language  of  the  liturgy,  invocation  of  saints,  respect 
for  images,  prayers  for  the  dead.  "  On  most  of  these,"  he  adds,  "  it  appears 
to  me,  that  there  is  no  essential  difference  between  the  '  Catholics '  and 
'  Protestants.'  The  existing  diversity  of  opinion  arises,  in  most  cases,  from 
certain  forms  of  words,  which  admit  of  satisfactory  explanation,  or  from  the 
ignorance  or  misconceptions  which  ancient  prejudices  and  ill-will  produce 
and  strengthen ;  but  which  could  be  removed."  Such  was  Dr.  Doyle's 
confession.  Dr.  Charles  O'Conor,  by  far  the  most  learned  writer  who  has 
arisen  among  the  papists  of  these  countries,  in  modern  times,  says  :  "  I  am 
confident  that  above  three  parts  of  those  debates  which  separate  '  Protes- 
tants'  from  '  Catholics'  might  be  laid  aside  ;  that  they  serve  only  to  exas- 
perate and  alienate  us  from  each  other  ;  and  that  if  our  church  were  heard 
canonicalhj,  she  would  not  only  reject  with  horror  the  false  doctrines  and 
notorious  abominations  so  often  imputed  to  her,  but  she  would  also  smooth 
many  other  difficulties,  wliich  lie  in  the  way  of  reconciliation  and  peace." 
— Columbanus,  Letter  III.  p.  130. 


224  ■  THE  BRITISH  CHURCHES.  [p.  I.  CH.  X. 

the  church's  doctrine  (for  they  beheve  nothing  in  common) ;  and 
meanwhile,  by  their  contradictions,  they  confirm  our  faith."** 

V.  The  British  churches  are  holy. — Their  doctrine  is  calcu- 
lated to  promote  holiness,  and  its  fruits  are  abundantly  mani- 
fested. The  necessity  of  holiness,  in  order  to  salvation,  is 
maintained  firmly  by  these, churches  :  it  forms  a  portion  of 
their  creed.  They  profess,  that  "  all  men  shall  rise  again  with 
their  bodies  ;  and  shall  give  account  for  their  own  works. 
And  they  that  have  done  good,  shall  go  into  life  everlasting ; 
and  they  that  have  done  evil,  into  everlasting  fire.^''^  It  is 
impossible  to  express  more  strongly  the  necessity  of  sancti- 
fication,  and  this  too  in  the  very  creed  of  the  church,  which 
she  proposes  to  all  her  members  to  be  "  thoroughly  received 
and  believed  ;"  and  which  is  continually  repeated  in  her  public 
service,  that  they  may  give  testimony  of  this  belief  and  recep- 
tion, by  joining  heartily  in  so  holy  a  confession.  Hence  it  is 
absurd  to  pretend  that  the  church  of  England  dispenses  with 
holiness  in  her  members.  Her  Articles  indeed  declare,  that 
we  are  justified  or  accounted  righteous  before  God,  "  not  for 
our  ow^n  works  and  deservings,"  but  for  the  merit  of  Christ  and 
by  means  of  faith  ;  but  it  is  a  lively  faith  which  is  necessarily 
productive  of  good  works,  as  the  same  article  intimates.*^  In 
fact,  so  careful  is  the  church  of  England  to  urge  the  necessity 
of  holiness,  that  she  docs  not  admit  any  new  member  to  her 
communion  without  exacting  from  him,  or  his  sponsors  in  his 
name,  a  solemn  vow  or  promise  "  to  renounce  the  devil  and  all 
his  w^orks,  the  vain  pomp  and  glory  of  the  world,  with  all 
covetous  desires  of  the  same,  and  the  carnal  desires  of  the 
flesh,  so  that  he  will  not  follow  nor  be  led  by  them  ;"  and 
another  solemn  promise,  "  obediently  to  keep  God's  command- 
ments, and  walk  in  the  same  all  the  days  of  his  hfe."'=  The 
church  of  England  only  admits  members  to  her  communion 
under  a  vow  of  holiness  ;  and  she  requires  them  afterwards,  at 

'^  Hilarius  Pictav.  de  Trinitate,  1.  vii.  p.  917.  ed.  Ben. 
c  Athanasian  Creed.  <i  Articles  XL  XII. 

'  Office  of  Baptism. 


SECT,  v.]  SANCTITY  OP  THE  BRITISH  CHURCHES.  225 

confirmation,  to  renew  in  the  presence  of  God  and  the  church, 
that  solemn  vow  made  at  baptism  ;  and  to  acknowledge  them- 
selves "  bound  to  believe  and  do  accordingly."*'  She  forbids 
sinners  to  approach  the  holy  table,?  and  if  their  sins  are  no- 
torious, commands  her  ministers  to  repel  them  from  it.''  Her 
prayers,  her  hymns,  all  her  services,  breathe  a  horror  of  sin, 
and  an  ardent  desire  for  spiritual  holiness  and  perfection.  But 
it  is  needless  to  dwell  on  further  particular  proofs  of  the  sanc- 
tity of  our  doctrine,  for  there  cannot  be  a  doubt  of  it  after 
what  has  been  allec-ed.  . 

And  as  this  has  always  been  the  doctrine  of  our  churches 
from  the  time  of  the  apostles,  so  they  have  in  every  age  been 
the  fruitful  parents  of  saints  and  holy  men.  The  stream  of 
ages  carried  in  its  course  the  names  of  martyrs,  and  saints, 
and  holy  missionaries,  who  derived  their  Christianity  from  our 
catholic  clmrches.  In  the  third  century  Alban  was  our  proto- 
martyr.  In  the  following  ages  Palladius,  Patrick,  David,  Au- 
gustine, Columba,  Birinus,  Chad,  S within,  Colman,  Cuthbert, 
Columbanus,  venerable  Bede,  king  Edward  the  confessor,  Al- 
phege,  Odo,  Anselm,  Osmund,  and  others  innumerable,  carried 
on  the  hne  of  sanctity  in  our  church.  In  later  ages,  Hugh  of 
Lincoln,  Richard  of  Chichester,  Groteste,  Hampole,  Ockham, 
Hooker,  Andrewes,  Usher,  Hammond,  Leighton,  Sanderson, 
Beveridge,  Kenn,  Wilson,  carried  on  the  succession  of  Christian 
sanctity.  From  these  churches  have  proceeded  many  eminent 
and  holy  missionaries  in  different  ages.  Columbanus  preached 
in  France  and  Germany.  Gallus  converted  Sw^itzerland.  Kili- 
anus  went  from  us  to  convert  the  Franks  ;  Willibrod  to  preach  to 
the  Batavians,  Frieslanders,  and  Danes  ;  Winfrid,  or  Boniface, 
to  Germany,  where  he  founded  extensive  churches.  Lebuin  we 
sent  to  Saxony  and  Friesland,  Guthebald  to  Norway,  and  Sig- 
frid  to  Sweden.  Nor  has  the  missionary  spirit  of  our  churches 
failed  to  show  itself  at  various  later  times,  in  establishing  mis- 

■    <"  Office  of  Confirmation. 
£  Exhortation  in  communion  office. 
*■  Rubric  at  the  head  of  the  communion  office. 
VOL.  I.— 29 


226  THE  BRITISH  CHURCHES.  [P.  I.  CH.  X. 

sions  for  the  conversion  of  the  Indians  of  North  America,  the 
Negroes,  the  idolaters  of  Hindostan,  China,  &c. ;  and  many 
holy  and  devoted  servants  of  Christ  have  spent  their  lives  in 
labouring  to  enlarge  the  kingdom  of  Christ,  even  to  the  present 
day.  Thus  it  is  evident  that  our  churches  have  all  the  marks 
of  sanctity  which  can  be  expected  in  any  part  of  the  catholic 
church  ;  and  without  making  invidious  comparisons,  it  is  pretty 
clear  that  the  tone  of  public  morality  and  zeal  for  Christianity, 
is  at  least  not  inferior  amongst  us  to  that  of  any  other  part  of 
the  church.  In  what  country  do  we  behold  more  numerous 
institutions  for  those  who  are  in  sickness  and  in  poverty  ?  And 
where  does  the  cry  of  famishing  or  persecuted  humanity  meet 
with  a  more  abundant  and  charitable  relief?  Finally,  in  what 
portion  of  the  church  are  holier  efforts  made  by  religious  men 
to  provide  spiritual  instruction  and  consolation  for  the  scattered 
sheep  of  Christ  ?  It  is  the  church  of  England  which  has  fixed 
the  tone  of  public  morality  amongst  us.  It  is  the  wealth,  the 
charity  of  her  children,  who  constitute  the  vast  majority  of  our 
population,  and  the  whole  of  our  higher  classes,  which  has  been 
so  beneficently  distributed.  The  reception  which  the  bishops 
and  clergy  of  the  old  Gallican  church,  exiled  for  their  consci- 
entious refusal  to  submit  to  the  dictation  of  an  infidel  Conven- 
tion ;  the  liberality,  and  still  more  the  generous  sympathy 
which  they  experienced  from  the  clergy,  the  universities,  the 
laity  of  our  church,  ought  to  have  secured  from  the  taunts  and 
calumnies  of  Romanists,  a  religion  which  could  inspire  all  the 
sentiments  and  actions  of  genuine  charity. 

VI.  The  British  churches  are  catholic. — Of  course  we  do 
not  pretend  that  our  particular  churches  constitute  the  whole 
chukh  of  Christ.  We  believe  that  the  catholic  church  exists 
in  all  parts  of  the  world  ;  and  therefore  it  is  absurd  to  ask  us  to 
prove  that  the  church  of  England  is  universal.  It  is  sufficient 
if  we  are  able  to  point  out  exactly  those  churches  in  all  nations 
which  we  acknowledge  to  be  parts  of  the  one  catholic  church. 
This  we  are  perfectly  willing  and  able  to  do  :  and  as  we  have 
never  separated  ourselves  from  those  churches  in  faith  or  com- 


SECT.  VI.]  THE    BRITISH    CHURCHES   CATHOLIC.  227 

munion,  so  have  they  never  passed  any  sentence  of  condemna- 
tion against  lis.  Our  communion  is  interrupted  by  accidental 
circumstances,  misunderstandings,  fauks,  &c.,  which  do  not, 
strictly  speaking,  involve  either  party  in  schism  or  heresy. 
This  at  least  is  our  assertion,  and  in  order  to  prove  it  false,  our 
adversaries  must  resort  to  a  long  discussion  of  facts  and 
principles. 

Our  churches  are  catholic,  because  they  acknowledge  the 
catholic  church,  respect  its  authority,  receive  its  faitli,  and  have 
never  been  divided  from  it.  Thus  they  have  all  the  qualities 
of  catholicity  which  particular  churches  can  have.  The  Galil- 
ean church  cannot  have  more,  nor  the  Greek,  nor  the  Russian, 
nor  the  Spanish.  None  of  these  churches  are  in  themselves 
universal ;  they  are  all  parts  of  the  catholic  church ;  and  so 
also  arc  our  churches.  In  fine,  we  use  the  name  of  catho- 
,  lie  as  appropriate  to  our  churches,'  while  we  give  other  titles  to 
the  various  denominations  which  have  separated  from  us  ;  as 
Independents,  Quakers,  Swedenborgians,  Baptists,  Romanists 
or  Papists,  Huntingdonians,  Methodists,  Socinians,  Unitarians, 
&c.     None  of  these  communities  dispute  with  us  the  posses- 

'  For  example,  in  the  order  for  prayer  before  sermons  in  1535,  the  preach- 
er was  to  "pray  for  the  whole  catholic  church  of  Christ,  &c.  and  espe- 
cially for  the  catholic  church  of  this  realm,"  and  for  king  Henry  VIII.  the 
supreme  head  "of  this  catholic  church  of  England." — See  Burnet,  vol.  iii. 
Records,  n.  29.  In  the  act  against  appeals  to  Rome  (24  Hen.  VIII.  c.  12), 
it  is  said  that  the  clergy  of  the  realm  shall  administer  all  sacraments,  &c. 
''  unto  all  the  subjects  of  the  same,  as  catholic  and  Christian  men  owen  to 
do."  In  the  act  against  Annates  (23  Hen.  VIII.  c.  33),  it  is  said  that  the 
king  and  all  his  subjects  "  as  well  spiritual  as  temporal,  been  as  obedient, 
devout,  catholic^  and  humble  children  of  God,  and  holy  church,  as  any  peo- 
ple be  within  any  realm  christened."  The  act  25  Hen.  VIII.  c.  21.  against 
Peter-pence,  declares  that  the  king  and  people  of  England  "  do  not  intend 
to  decline  or  vary  from  the  congregation  of  Christ's  church  in  any  things 
concerning  the  very  articles  of  the  catholic  faith  of  Christendom."  The 
English  ritual  contains  prayers  for  the  "  catholic  "  church  only :  nor  do 
any  of  our  formularies  recognize  any  titles  or  names  as  applied  to  designate 
the  church  of  England,  except  those  of  the  primitive  church.  The  lan- 
guage of  our  learned  theologians  is  always  regulated  by  this  principle. 


228  THE  BRITISH    CHURCHES  [p.  I.  CH.  X. 

sioji  of  this  name  except  Romanists  ;  and  their  impudent  perti- 
nacity in  the  assumption  of  it,  induces  sometimes  the  ignorant 
or  the  indifferent  to  countenance  their  claim  in  some  degree  ; 
but  all  who  are  sufficiently  informed  do  not  recognize  them 
under  this  appellation,  because  they  know  not  any  other  catho- 
lics in  these  countries  except  the  members  of  our  apostolical 
churches. 

VII.  Tlie  British  churches  are  apostolical. —  I  have  already 
shown  that  they  have  existed  visibly  and  perpetually  as  socie- 
ties of  professing  Christians,  partaking  of  Christian  rites,  and 
guided  by  ministers  professing  to  be  ministers  of  Christ. 
These  societies  were  originally  derived,  if  not  from  the  actual 
preaching  of  the  apostles,  at  least  from  the  churches  founded 
b}'-  the  apostles  ;  and  they  were  incorporated  at  their  foundation 
with  the  whole  body  of  the  church  ;  not  ejected  or  separated  from 
it  at  the  very  moment  of  their  existence.  They  are  the  original 
Christian  societies  of  these  countries,  descended  by  unbroken 
succession  from  a  most  profound  antiquity  ;  and  they  are  the 
parent  stem  from  Avhich  all  other  communities  of  professing 
Christians  in  this  country  fell,  or  were  cast  forth  as  withered 
branches.  Thus  it  is  clear  that  they  are  apostolical  in  their 
succession  as  Christian  societies.  And  further,  their  ministry 
is  also  descended  from  the  apostles.  They  alone,  of  all  socie- 
ties around  us  (with  the  single  exception  of  the  Romanists), 
claim  this  apostolical  succession.  All  other  communities 
evince  their  want  of  such  a  succession  by  the  derision  and  scorn 
with  which  they  treat  the  notion,  and  their  abuse  of  all  who 
maintain  it.  This  is  a  convincing  proof  that  the}^  themselves 
neither  have  this  succession,  nor  can  by  possibility  pretend  any 
right  to  it.  We  have  only  to  meet  the  objections  advanced  by 
Romanists,  and  others  after  them,  to  the  validity  of  our  ordina- 
tions, and  the  mission  of  our  clergy.  Now  in  the  first  place, 
it  is  well  to  lay  as  a  foundation,  the  admission  of  our  adversa- 
ries, that  the  church  of  England  clai?ns  a  perpetual  succession 
of  valid  ordinations.  Milner,  a  Romanist,  says,  the  church  of 
England  "  teaches  that  the  orders  of  her  ministers  have  dc- 


SECT.    VII.]       THE    BRITISH    CHURCHES   APOSTOLICAL.  229 

scended  from  the  apostles  and  are  appointed  by  God  ;  and 
that  the  power  given  to  them  in  the  ceremony  of  ordination  is 
commmiicated  by  the  Holy  Ghost ;  moreover,  that  the  form  of 
episcopacy  is  divine  and  essentially  necessary  to  her  existence." 
This  he  proves  from  her  formularies,  and  from  various  histori- 
cal facts,  which,  he  says,  "  may  be  alleged  in  proof  of  the 
church  of  England's  opinion  concerning  the  necessity  of  regu- 
lar and  uninterrupted  succession  from  Christ  and  his  apostles 
in  the  sacred  ministry."''  The  claim  then  of  the  church  of 
England  is  manifest ;  but  the  Romanists  pretend  that  it  is  ill- 
founded,  and  endeavour  to  show  that  our  ordinations  are  inva- 
lid in  several  points.  Now  there  are  two  arguments  which 
prove  that  they  themselves  do  not  believe  that  our  ordinations 
are  really  invalid.  First,  it  appears  from  the  history  of  the 
controversy,  that  new  objections  were  continually  invented  by 
them,  as  their  former  objections  were  found  untenable.  Origi- 
nally it  was  denied,  that  our  bishops  at  the  Reformation  had 
received  any  ordination.  After  forty  years,  it  was  pretended 
that  the  ordination  was  only  performed  by  a  presbyter.  Sixty 
years  after  that,  *it  was  pretended  that  ihc  Jmrn  of  ordination 
was  invalid.  New  tales  were  continually  devised  as  the  old 
ones  were  proved  to  be  fabrications  ;  and  all  this  leads  to  the 
conclusion,  that  the  validity  of  our  ordinations  was  denied  from 
a  motive  of  prudence,  and  in  order  to  obtain  benefits  to  the 
cause  of  the  Romish  party,  not  from  any  real  doubt  or  difficul- 
ty. Difficulties  were  got  up,  invented,  sought  for :  which  is  a 
sufficient  proof  that  they  all  arose  from  the  spirit  of  controver- 
sy.^ Latterly,  however,  these  old  objections  are  usually  neg- 
lected by  Romish  controversialists,  and  they  limit  themselves 
to  prove  that  our  ordinations  are  irregular  and  schismatic,  not 
absolutely  null.  The  second  argument  is,  that  some  of  the 
most  eminent  divines  of  the  Roman  obedience  have  acknow- 
ledged the  validity  of  our  orders.  Bossuet  himself,  the  prince 
of    their   controversialists,  was    thoroughly  convinced   of  it ; 


•^  Letters  to  a  Prebendary,  Lett.  VIH.  p.  220,  221. 
1  See  Part  VL  Chapter  X.  "  On  English  Ordinations." 


230  THE  BRITISH    CHURCHES.  [p.  I.  CH.  X. 

Courayer  expressly  and  ably  defended  it ;  and  many  others 
have  fully  concurred  in  the  same  opinion.™  Therefore  on  the 
whole,  the  probability  is  entirely  in  our  favour,  for  what  but 
the  force  of  truth  could  have  compelled  our  very  adversaries  to 
confessions  so  favourable  to  us  ?  When  to  this  we  add  the  in- 
consistency, and  the  evident  design  of  those  who  have  invented 
objections ;  no  rational  doubt  can  remain  that  our  ordinations 
are  indeed  valid,  as  the  church  of  England  believes  them  to  be. 
It  is  surely  not  credible  that,  believing  as  she  does,  even  by  our 
adversaries'  confession,  the  necessity  of  valid  episcopal  ordina- 
tion, she  should  have  failed  to  maintain  such  an  ordination,  or 
have  risked  it  in  any  way. 

Thus  our  ordinations  are  evidently  derived  by  valid  succes- 
sion from  the  apostles  ;  and  it  only  remains  to  show  that  they 
were  legitimate  and  free  from  schism.  Now  I  have  before 
proved  that  these  churches  are  free  from  schism  ;  therefore  the 
clergy  must  have  mission  ;  and  though  it  would  lead  to  a  too 
lengthened  discussion,  to  examine  here  all  the  points  in  which 
they  are  charged  with  irregularity,  at  the  time  of  the  Reforma- 
tion ;  still  we  are  prepared  to  justify  them  in  all  respects,  when- 
ever our  adversaries  please.  We,  however,  can  retort  on  the 
Romanists  their  objections  much  more  easily  ;  and  prove  from 
the  doctrines  of  their  most  eminent  theologians,  that  they  are 
themselves  without  any  valid  ordinations  in  these  countries  :" 
and  while  we  can  trace  an  unbroken  succession  of  bishops  in  all 
the  churches  ;  they  are  unable  to  show  more  than  two  or  three 
sees  in  which  a  succession  of  their  pastors  has  existed  from  the 
sixteenth  century :  and  those  were  merely  usurpers  and  intru- 
ders into  sees  already  filled.'^ 

VIII.  Since  then  it  is  certain  that  our  churches  have  been 
perpetually  visible  even  from  the  earliest  ages  ;  since  they  pre- 

'"  See  Part  VI.  Chapter  X.  "  On  English  Ordinations." 
»  See  Part  VI.  Chapter  XI.  "  On  Romish  Ordinations." 
°  See  their  "  Ordo"  for  Ireland,  cited  in  Brit.  Magazine  for  1836,  p.  615. 

&c.     See  also  Part  II.  Chapter  IX.     "  On  the  Reformation  and  Schism  in 

Ireland." 


SECT.  VIII.]    TRUE  CHURCH  OP  CHRIST  IN  ENGLAND.  231 

serve  the  unity  of  comiimnion  both  in  tliemselves,  and  as  re- 
spects the  cathohc  church;  since  they  equally  preserve  the  unity 
of  faith  ;  since  they  have  never  been  in  any  way  separated  from 
the  unity  of  the  catholic  church  ;  since  they  have  all  the  charac- 
teristics of  Christian  holiness  which  can  belong  to  a  branch 
of  the  true  church  ;  and  since  their  ministry  is  derived  in  regu- 
lar and  valid  succession  from  the  apostles  ;   there  can  be  no 
reasonable  doubt  that  they  are  indeed  churches  of  Christ.    The 
probability  is  so  great  that  it  should  be  sufficient  to  determine 
any  man  without  further  examination  to  unite  himself  to  them. 
And  this  probability  is  heightened  to  moral  certainty,  when  it 
is  remembered  that  no  fact  in  history  is  more  clear  than  this  ; 
that    every   other   community  or  denomination  of  professing 
Christians  among  us,  originally  separated  itself  or  was  cut  off 
from  our  churches.     This  is  a  peculiar  character  which  distin- 
guishes the  church  of  England  in  the  most  brilliant  manner  from 
all  the  rest,  and  marks  her  amongst  us  as  "  that  city  set  upon  a 
hill  which  cannot  be  hid."     Her  antiquity,  superior  by  full 
THIRTEEN  CENTURIES  to  all  thoso  aroiuid  her  :  her  orthodoxy, 
confirmed  by  the  admissions,  and  still  more  by  the  contests  and 
mutual  differences  of  all  her  rebellious  children  :  her  perpetuity 
amidst  the  persecutions  of  sects,  and  of  temporal  powers  ;  all 
prove,  that  of  a  truth,  the  arm  of  the  Lord  is  with  her,  and  the 
blessing  of  God,  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  rests 
upon  her.     If  there  be  any  church  of  God  amongst  us,  it  can 
be  none  other  than  this  :  for  the  marks  and  characteristics  of 
the  true  church  belong  to  her  alone,  among  all  the  communities 
which  profess  Christianity  in  these  realms.     Does  any  society 
except  ours  even  pretend  to  apostolical  and  perpetual  succession 
in  these  countries  ?     The  Romanists  alone  do  so,  and  they  are 
instantly  overthrown  by  the  notorious  fact,  that  their  societies 
were  gathered  out  of  the  churches  of  England  and  Ireland,  by 
Jesuits  and  missionary  priests  in  the  reign  of  queen  Elizabeth. 
They  existed  then  for  the  first  time,  and  gained  existence  only 
by  separating  from  an  older  Christian  society.     Therefore,  to 


232  THE  BRITISH  CHURCHES.  [p.  I,  CH.  X. 

pretend  that  they  have  apostolical  succession,  would   be    alto- 
gether absurd,  and  cannot  be  listened  to  for  a  moment.      -    - 

There  is  therefore  the  strongest  probability,  amounting  to 
moral  certainly,  that  the  British  churches  constitute  really  the 
church  of  God  in  these  countries  ;  for  how  incredible  is  it  that 
G  od  should  permit  a  false  church  to  wear  all  the  attributes  of  a 
tiaie  one,  and  therefore  to  lead  such  a  vast  multitude  of  people 
to  destruction.  Hence  it  is  plain  that  it  is  the  duty  of  every  one 
to  unite  himself  to  our  churches  without  delay ;  nor  is  it  in  any 
degree  necessary  to  enter  on  an  examination  of  all  the  doc- 
trines and  practices  of  these  churches,  to  ascertain  their  con- 
formity with  Christianity. p  It  is  true  that  several  of  our  doc- 
trines are  carped  at  by  various  communities  around  us.  The 
Romanists  accuse  us  of  heresy  on  several  points.  We  deny 
the  charge  most  absolutely  and  peremptorily.  Is  it  then  neces- 
sary to  go  into  an  examination  of  all  these  points,  on  which  the 
church  is  assailed  by  her  adversaries,  before  we  join  her  com- 
munion ?  Were  this  the  case,  few  men  would  ever  be  enabled 
to  unite  themselves  to  her,  even  though  she  be  the  church  of 
God,  in  which  salvation  is  offered  ;  because  their  lives  would 
be  spent  in  investigating  critically  all  these  controversies  of  faith. 
It  cannot  be  needful,  for  example,  to  enter  into  the   controver- 

p  According  to  all  Romish  controversialists,  the  discussion  of  particular 
doctrines  is  not  the  proper  mode  of  discriminating  the  true  church.  Tour- 
nely  says,  "  Neque  vera  Christi  doctrina,  neque  legitimus  sacramentorura 
usus,  sunt  verae  notse  quibus  certo  dignosci  possit  Ecclesia  Christi,  et  dis- 
cern! a  quacumque  alia  falsi  nominis  Ecclesia."  (De  Ecclesia,  i.  p.  62.) 
Because,  as  he  argues,  all  sects  boast  that  the  truth  of  doctrine  and  sacra- 
ments is  with  thern.  "  Tam  obscurum  est,  imo  longe  magis,  dignoscere 
quje  est  pura  Christi  doctrina,  et  qua3  vera  ejus  sacramenta,  quam  quae  sit 
vera  Ecclesia,"  (p.  66.)  .  .  .  .  "  "  simplices  rustici,  illiterati,  plebaei,  &c. 
prorsus  incapaces  sunt  discussionis  sen  examinis  doctrinee,"  (p.  71.)  Car- 
dinal de  la  Luzerne  argues  well  to  the  same  effect  :  Dissertation  sur  les 
Eglises  Cath.  et  Prot.  t.  i.  p.  102,  &c.  On  these  principles  it  is  needless  to 
examine  the  doctrine  of  the  British  churches  in  order  to  be  convinced  of 
their  soundness.  Their  orthodoxy  should  be  assumed  as  certain  from  their 
possessing  all  the  marks  of  the  true  church. 


SECT.  VIII.]    OBJECTIONS. — DIFFERENCE  OF  RELIGION.  233 

sies  concerning  the  Trinity,  incarnation,  original  sin,  predesti- 
nation, the  sacraments,  the  power  of  the  Roman  pontiff,  the 
forms  of  church  government,  &c.  &c.  and  to  master  them  all 
before  we  unite  ourselves  to  the  church.  This  would  impose 
an  impenetrable  bar  in  the  way  of  those  who  are  called  by 
God  to  unite  themselves  without  delay  to  the  Christian  and 
catholic  cliurch,  and  to  receive  from  her,  as  "the  pillar  and 
ground  of  truth,"  that  instruction  and  guidance  which  she  is  au- 
thorized by  God,  and  aided  by  his  Holy  Spirit,  to  bestow.  We 
are  ready,  however,  to  clear  up  the  difficulties  which  press  more 
particularly  on  the  minds  of  those,  who  are  otherwise  willing 
to  enter  the  church  of  Christ ;  nor  do  we  pretend  to  repress  the 
inquiries  of  those  who  are  of  our  communion,  provided  they 
are  always  directed  humbly  in  accordance  with  Scripture  and 
catholic  tradition,  and  do  not  transgress  the  articles  of  the  catho- 
lic faith,  which  we  guard  with  the  utmost  vigilance. 

OBJECTIONS. 

I.  The  church  of  England  cannot  pretend  to  be  spiritually 
descended  from  the  ancient  British  and  EngUsh  churches, 
because  she  changed  her  faith  at  the  Reformation.  The  doc- 
trines now  maintained  by  the  church  of  England,  differ  in 
several  points  from  those  which  were  held  by  the  church  be- 
fore the  Reformation, 

Ansxoer.  It  has  been  before  proved,  that  all  differences  in 
doctrine  are  not  differences  in  faith ;  and  that  differences  in 
faith  do  not  always  involve  heresy.^  Consequently  the  church 
of  England  may  differ,  even  in  some  point  of  faith,  from  her 
former  self;  and  yet  may  always  have  continued  free  from 
heresy.  The  African  churches  did  not  change  their  religion 
because  they  admitted  in  the  time  of  Augustine,  the  baptism 
of  heretics,  which  they  had  rejected  in  the  time  of  Cyprian. 
The  Western  churches  did  not  change  their  religion  because, 


''  Chapter  V.  sect.  iii. 
VOL.  I. — 30 


234  THE  BRITISH  CHURCHES.  [p.  I.  CH.  X. 

after  administering  the  eucharist  in  both  kinds,  for  many  cen- 
turies, they  at  last  administered  it  in  one  kind  only.  The 
Spanish  churches  did  not  change  their  religion,  when  they 
abolished  the  practice  of  trine  immersion  in  baptism,  on  account 
of  the  Arian  heresy  which  abused  it.  And,  in  like  manner, 
the  churches  of  England  did  not  necessarily  change  their  reli- 
gion, because  in  one  age  certain  opinions  and  practices  were 
introduced,  and  in  another  were  corrected  or  removed.  To 
prove  that  the  church  of  England  differs,  in  articles  of  faith, 
from  her  belief  in  any  former  age,  it  would  be  necessary  to  go 
into  a  very  long  examination  of  particular  doctrines,  and  of  the 
mode  and  degree  in  which  they  have  been  held  by  the  church 
in  different  ages,  which  would  obviously  lead  to  great  inconve- 
nience ;  for  the  great  body  of  mankind  are  totally  incapable 
of  instituting  such  a  comparison.  Therefore  this  objection 
cannot  afford  any  excuse  for  being  separate  from  our  branch 
of  the  catholic  church. 

II.  The  church  of  England  was  founded  by  Henry  VIII . 
'  and  Cranmer,  therefore  she  cannot  be  apostolical. 

Answer.  It  is  said  by  the  same  objectors,  that  the  Eastern 
church  was  founded  by  Cerularius.  We  might  add,  with  equal 
historical  truth  and  decency,  that  the  Roman  church  was 
founded  by  Bossuet,  or  by  the  late  Dr.  Milner. 

III.  The  British  churches  do  not  possess  unity  of  doctrine, 
for  several  of  their  theologians,  such  as  Hoadley,  Clarke, 
Blackburne,  &c.  were  infected  with  Arian  or  Socinian  notions, 
contrary  to  her  doctrines. 

Answer.  Every  church,  without  exception,  is  occasionally 
troubled  by  false  brethren.  Jansenism,  infidelity,  and  indiffer- 
ence, exist  in  the  bosom  of  the  Roman  churches.'^  Hoadley 
escaped  punishment  only  by  his  arts,  and  the  interference  of 
the  civil  power ;  Clarke  was  censured  by  the  convocation ;  the 
others  were  so  cautious,  that  they  generally  avoided  open  con- 
tradiction to  the  doctrines  of  the  church.     In  fine,  it  is  certain, 

'  See  the  Appendices  to  the  next  chapter. 


OBJECT.]  OBJECTIONS — DIVISIONS.  235 

by  the  confession  and  the  practice  of  Romanists,  that  the 
church  is  sometimes  obUged,  for  various  good  reasons,  to  tole- 
rate heretics  for  a  time  ;  but  she  does  not  regard  them  as  her 
children.* 

IV.  There  are  parties  in  the  British  churches  (evangelical 
and  orthodox)  which  differ  in  doctrine  :  therefore  they  have 
not  unity  of  faith. 

Ansiver.  There  are  similar  parties  divided  on  the  same  ques- 
tions, in  the  Roman  churches  ;  viz.  the  Dominicans,  Augus- 
tinians,  and  Jesuits  ;  not  to  speak  of  the  Ultramontane  and  the 
Galilean ;  the  Jansenists  and  Jesuits,  the  Reformers  and  Anti- 
reformers,  who  all  differ  on  several  points  of  doctrine.  But  it 
is  plain,  that  there  can  be  no  very  great  or  essential  difference 
between  the  members  of  our  churches,  from  the  fact  of  their 
remaining  united  in  the  same  communion,  without  any  separa- 
tion, and  with  general  mutual  good  will. 

V.  There  are  different  societies  which  claim  to  be  the  church 
of  England  ;  e.  g.  besides  the  established  church,  there  are 
the  Nonjurors  and  the  Methodists. 

Answer.  (1.)  The  Nonjurors  came  to  an  end  long  ago;  and 
even  they  did  not  claim,  exclusively,  to  be  the  church  of  Eng- 
land ;  that  is,  the  more  learned  of  them.  The  Methodists  do 
not  pretend  to  be  a  church  at  all  :  but  call  themselves  a  society 
or  association,  which  they  would  represent  to  be  united  to  the 
church  of  England,  and  subsidiary  to  its  ministrations.  (2.) 
Other  churches  are  subject  to  this  objection  still  more  than 
ours.  For  example  :  the  Roman  churches  are  confronted  and 
rivalled,  first,  by  the  Constitutional  church,  derived  from  the 


»  Bailly,  a  Roman  theologian,  in  reply  to  the  objection,  that  the  Roman 
church  sometimes  tolerates  heretics  in  her  bosom  ;  and  suffers  some  who 
resist  the  definitions  of  the  church,  to  unite  with  the  faithful  in  sacred 
offices,  says ;  "  Ejusmodi  homines  tolerat  Ecclesia,  id  est,  nominatim  a 
communione  sua  non  arcet,  concedo  :  eos  habet  ut  filios,  ncgo.  Aliquando 
Ecclesia,  prudentiae  causa,  ut  pejora  devitet,  atque  ut  facilius  ad  meliora 
reducantur,  tolerat  nonnullos  suis  definitionibus  adversantes,"  «&c.— Tract, 
de  Eccl.  Christi,  cap.  vi.  prop.  iv.  inter  objectioncs. 


236  THE  BRITISH  CHURCHES,  [p.  I.  CH.  X. 

bishops  and  church  estabhshed  in  France  in  the  revolution  ; 
secondly,  by  the  adherents  of  the  Gallican  bishops,  exiled  at 
that  time,  and  deprived  of  their  sees,  in  direct  contradiction  to 
the  canons,  by  Pius  VII.  of  Rome,  in  1801  ;  thirdly,  the  Jan- 
senist  church,  existing  in  several  parts,  and  established  in 
Holland,  under  their  archbishop  of  Utrecht  and  other  prelates. 
Each  of  these  societies  regard  themselves  as  constituting  the 
true  Roman  Catholic  Church,  and  impute  schism  or  heresy  to 
some  or  all  of  those  vv^ho  are  subject  to  the  Roman  pontiffs. 

VI.  The  church  of  England  is  admitted,  by  its  own  writers, 
to  have  separated  from  the  catholic  church.  Bishop  Jewell, 
in  his  Apology,  says :  "  We  have  departed  indeed  from  them, 
and  for  that  thing  we  offer  thanks  to  God,  and  exceedingly 
congratulate  ourselves  "'...."  Though  we  have  departed 
from  that  church  which  they  call  catholic,  and  for  that  reason 
they  cause  hatred  towards  us  among  those  that  cannot  judge, 
yet  it  is  sufficient  for  us,  and  ought  to  be  for  any  prudent  and 
pious  man,  that  we  have  departed  from  that  church  which 
might  err,"  &c.'^ 

Answe?'.  Jewell  corrects  himself  elsewhere,  and  says,  that 
We  rather  departed  from  the  errors  of  the  Roman  church,  than 
from  the  church  itself;''  and  in  another  place  he  says,  "We 
have  not  so  much  departed  from  them,  as  been  ejected  by 
curses  and  excommunications."'"  Therefore  it  is  plain  that 
Jewell,  in  the  former  passages,  spoke  loosely,  and  needs  cor- 
rection. Chillingworth  observes  with  truth,  that  "  It  is  not  all 
one  to  forsake  the  errors  of  the  church,  or  to  forsake  the  church 
in  her  error,  and  simply  to  forsake  the  church  ;  no  more  than 
it  is  for  me  to  renounce  my  brother's  or  my  friend's  vices  or 

»  Juelli  Apologia,  p.  141.  ed.  1606. 

"  Ibid.  56.  See  Dr.  Wordsworth's  Christian  Institutes,  vol.  iv.  p.  313, 
for  some  very  excellent  observations  on  this  subject.  Dr.  W.  shows  that 
Jewell  has  not,  in  this  place,  done  justice  to  the  church  of  England  ;  and 
cites  Hooker,  Laud,  and  Sir  R.  Twysden,  in  proof  that  we  did  not  sepa- 
rate from  the  church. 

.     V  Ibid.  p.  9a  -  Ibid.  p.  145. 


OBJECT.]  OBJECTIONS — WANT  OF   SANCTITY.  237 

errors,  and  to  renounce  my  brother  or  my  friend.  The  former, 
then,  was  done  by  protestants,  the  latter  was  not  done.  Nay,  not 
only  not  from  the  catholic,  but  not  so  much  as  from  the  Roman, 
did  they  separate  per  omnia ;  but  only  in  those  practices  which 
they  conceived  superstitious  or  impious."^  I  adduce  this  pas- 
sage from  Chillingworth,  because  such  a  testimony  derives 
additional  value  in  coming  from  an  undervaluer  of  Church 
authority,  as  he  was.  Hooker  says  :  "  We  hope,  that  to  re- 
form ourselves,  if  at  any  time  we  have  done  amiss,  is  not  to 
sever  ourselves  from  the  church  we  were  of  before.  In  the 
church  we  were,  and  we  are  so  still. "^ 

VII.  The  fruits  of  sanctity  are  not  found  in  the  British 
churches,  for  none  of  the  saints  were  of  their  communion ; 
they  have  no  monastic  institutions,  and  the  practice  of  fasting 
is  neglected  among  them. 

Answer.  (1.)  I  have  already  proved  that  many  eminent  saints 
have  arisen  in  these  churches  ;  and  to  assert,  that  none  of  the 
saints  were  of  our  communion,  is  to  assume  the  point  in  de- 
bate ;  for  if  the  church  of  England  be  a  part  of  the  catholic 
church,  all  the  saints  belong  to  us.  (2.)  The  catholic  church 
had  no  monastic  institutions  for  the  first  three  centuries  :  and 
monasteries  have  been  abolished,  even  in  many  countries  sub- 
ject to  the  Roman  jurisdiction,  as  well  as  amongst  us.  Besides 
this  :  such  institutions  are  commonly  very  degenerate  amongst 
Romanists.;  and  a  truly  ascetic  spirit  may  be,  and  doubtless  is, 
preserved  in  many  churches  without  them.  (3.)  As  to  the 
practice  of  fasting,  it  is  true  that  the  design  and  commands  of 
our  churches  are  not  sufficiently  attended  to  in  this  respect. 
The  papist  Milner  himself  proves,  that  the  duty  of  fasting  is 
established  by  the  church  of  England  :^  but  it  is  certain  that 
every  church  is  deficient  sometimes,  in  some  points  of  disci- 

^  Chillingworth,  chapter  iii.  s.  11. 

y  Ecclesiastical  Polity,  Works,  vol.  i.  p.  437.  ed.  Keble. 

"^  Letters  to  a  Prebendary,  lett.  iii.  He  proves  it  from  the  Homilies, 
the  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  the  Whole  Duty  of  Man,  and  the  works  of 
Bishops  Patrick,  Bevericige,  and  Gunning. 


238  TUE  BRITISH  CHURCHES.  [r.  I.  CH.  X. 

pline  ;  and  there  is  none  which  has  greater  deficiencies  than 
the  Roman  itself.  Van  Espcn,  one  of  their  most  learned  wri- 
ters, deplores  the  utter  neglect  of  discipline  among  them,  and 
the  multitude  of  offences  and  crimes  suffered  to  pass  without 
rebuke.^  In  fine,  there  is  no  necessity  whatever  to  prove  our 
churches  superior  or  even  equal  in  all  respects  in  sanctity  to 
other  branches  of  the  catholic  church,  because  churches  of 
Christ  may  differ  in  actual  sanctity.  But  we  do  not  fear  that 
comparison  with  other  churches  will  turn  to  our  disadvantage 
in  this  respect,  and  I  shall  show  this  in  the  next  chapter. 

VIII.  The  reformers  of  the  church  of  England  were  not 
holy,  Henry  VIII,  was  a  tyrant,  and  a  prey  to  his  passions. 
Cranmer  was  in  several  respects  unholy. 

Ansiuer.  Romanists  affirm  that  the  only  alteration  introduced 
by  Henry  VIII.  was  the  suppression  of  the  papal  jurisdiction. 
Therefore  they  cannot  regard  him  as  properly  the  reformer  of 
the  church  of  England,  But  however,  admitting  that  Henry 
and  Somerset,  and  others  who  aided  in  the  reformation  of 
abuses  in  our  churches,  were  not  free  from  serious  offences, 
still  it  does  not  follow  that  the  measures  which  they  supported 
were  in  themselves  unholy.  By  no  means  :  Bossuet  himself 
admits  the  reverse.  "  Who  doubts,"  he  says,  "  that  God  has 
made  use  of  very  evil  princes  to  accomplish  great  works  ?"'' 
Therefore  the  character  of  Henry,  Somerset,  &c.  affords  no 
presumption  against  the  church  of  England  :  and  as  to  Cran- 
mer, though  wc  do  not  observe  in  his  character  any  extraordi- 
nary sanctity  or  firmness,  still  he  is  easily  defended  from  all 
those  accusations  of  hypocrisy,  perjury,  and  other  abominable 
crimes,  which  have  been  so  industriously  fastened  on  him  by 
our  opponents.''  In  short,  it  is  evident  that  every  effort  has 
been  made  to  blacken  his  character  and  that  of  Henry  VIII., 

a  Van  Espen,  Jus  Canonicum,  pars  i.  tit,  xx,  d.  i.  s.  11, 
"  M.  Burnet  prend  beaucoup  de  peine  a  entasser  des  exemples  de 
princes  tres  deregles  dont  Dieu  s'est  servi  pour  de  grans  ouvrages.     Qui 
en  doute  V — Variations,  liv,  vii.  s.  xlix. 

c  See  Part  II.  Cliapter  VIII,  ■  ;     . 


OBJECT.]  OBJECTIONS — DONATIST  PRINCIPLES.  239 

and  all  others  wlio  promoted  the  reformation,  in  order  to  throw 
discredit  on  the  church  of  England. 

IX.  The  argument  of  St.  Augustine  and  Optatus  against 
the  Donatists,  urging  that  they  could  not  be  the  true  church 
because  their  communion  was  limited  to  the  single  region  of 
Africa,  is  equally  applicable  to  the  British  churches,  which 
are  also  of  a  limited  extent. 

Answer.  The  Donatists  pretended  that  they  alone  constituted 
the  church  of  Christ,  the  rest  of  the  Christian  world  having 
fallen  into  apostacy :  but  we  do  not  make  the  same  claim,  but 
admit  that  there  are  churches  in  all  parts  of  the  world,  and  can 
point  out  which  they  are.  Therefore  the  argument  from  the 
universality  of  the  church,  which  was  so  cogent  against  the 
Donatists,  has  no  application  to  us  :  for  we  account  for  the 
absence  of  communion  between  ourselves  and  other  churches 
without  imputing  heresy,  schism,  or  apostacy  to  them,  or  to 
ourselves. 

X.  The  churches  of  England,  &c.  are  not  apostolical,  be- 
cause various  writers  of  their  communion,  such  as  Middleton, 
Casaubon,  &c.  have  admitted  that  the  doctrines  and  practice 
of  the  early  church  recorded  by  the  fathers  were  opposed  to 
the  church  of  England. 

Answer.  These  writers  are  generally  to  be  regarded  as 
unsound  members  of  our  churches,  who  endeavoured  to  under- 
mine the  reverence  paid  to  catholic  tradition,  in  order  that  they 
might  open  a  way  for  the  subversion  of  our  catholic  faith, 
which  is  so  strongly  confirmed  by  the  tradition  of  the  church. 
Middleton  resolved  the  account  of  the  fall  of  man  into  a  mere 
allegory,  thereby  undermining  the  whole  fabric  of  Christianity. 
Therefore  the  sentiments  of  such  a  man  can  have  no  weight 
on  any  religious  subject.  It  is  certain,  however,  that  the  church 
of  England,  and  the  whole  body  of  our  eminent  and  learned 
theologians,  receive  the  doctrine  of  the  church  universal,  and 
the  apostolical  tradition,  with  great  reverence  and  devotion.'^ 

XT.  Where  was  the  religion  of  the  church  of  England  before 

*  See  Part.  IL  Chapter  VI. 


240  -  THE  BRITISH  CHURCHES.  [p.  I.  CH.  X. 

the  Reformation,  that  is,  where  was  there  any  society  of  pro- 
fessing Christians  in  which  the  doctrines  of  the  Thirty-nine 
Articles  were  acknowledged  and  approved  ? 

Answer.  The  doctrine  of  the  Thirty-nine  Articles  was  that 
of  the  universal  church  before  the  Reformation  ;  for  all  that  is 
of  faith  in  those  Articles  was  of  faith  in  the  catholic  church ; 
and  all  that  is  of  opinion,  was  also  matter  of  opinion  in  the 
catholic  church. 

XIl.  Papists  do  not  admit  that  the  members  of  the  British 
churches  can  be  saved,  while  the  latter  allow  that  papists  can 
be  saved.  Therefore  it  is  plain  that  there  is  greater  safety  in 
the  papal  communion. 

Answer.  The  argument  ought  to  be  directly  reversed,  thus. 
Papists  allow  that  the  members  of  the  church  can  be  saved. 
They  cannot  allow  that  papists  are  in  the  way  of  salvation. 
Therefore  the  communion  of  the  church  is  safer  than  that  of 
the  papal  schism.  I  prove  the  two  first  propositions  thus.  (1.) 
Papists  allow  that  we  can  be  saved.  Dr.  Milner  says  :  "  Ca- 
tholic divines  and  the  holy  fathers,  at  the  same  time  that  they 
strictly  insist  on  the  necessity  of  adhering  to  the  doctrine 
and  communion  of  the  catholic  church,  make  an  express  ex- 
ception in  favour  of  what  is  termed  invincible  ignorance  ;  which 
occurs  when  persons  out  of  the  true  church  are  sincerely  and 
firmly  resolved,  in  spite  of  all  worldly  allurements  on  the  one 
hand,  and  of  all  opposition  on  the  other,  to  enter  into  it,  if  they 
can  find  it  out,  and  when  they  use  their  best  endeavours  for 
this  purpose.  .  .  .Our  great  controvertist,  Bellarmine,  asserts 
that  such  Christians,  in  virtue  of  the  disposition  of  their  hearts, 
belong  to  the  catholic  church."*^  Accordingly,  he  elsewhere 
says,  that "  all  the  young  children  who  have  been  baptized  "  in  the 
church  of  England,  &c.  "  and  all  invincibly  ignorant  Chris- 
tians who  externally  adhere  to  them,  really  belong  to  the  ca- 


=  End  of  Controversy,  letter  xviii.  The  same  doctrine  of  the  salvabili- 
ty  of  some  of  those  who  are  externally  separated  from  the  Roman  com- 
munion, is  taught  by  Dr.  Bishop,  a  noted  Romanist,  cited  by  archbishop 
Bramhall,  Works,  p.  100. 


OBJECT.]  OBJECTIONS. — GREATER  SAFETY  IN  POPERY,    241 

tholic  church."^  (2.)  On  the  other  hand,  the  church  of  England 
excommunicates  any  one  who  shall  dare  to  affirm  that  the  Ro- 
mish community  in  these  countries  is  a  true  church  ;s  and  as 
we  therefore  cannot  allow  Romanists  to  be  in  the  church,  and 
as  we  have  no  right  to  admit  that  any  persons  out  of  the  church 
are,  or  can  be  in  the  way  of  salvation,^  it  is  plain  that  there  is 
much  the  greatest  safety  in  adhering  to  our  communion,  in 
which  alone  both  parties  allow  that  salvation  may  be  ob- 
tained. '■ ' 

XIII.  The  church  of  England,  in  acknowledging  the  eccle- 
siastical supremacy  of  the  king,  renounces  the  commission 
given  by  Christ  to  his  apostles  ;  and  her  ministers  derive  all 
their  authority  from  the  Crown,  which  has  at  various  times 
made  ordinances  with  regard  to  ecclesiastical  matters,  worship, 
discipline,  &;c.,  and  thus  usurped  the  church's  office.  Conse- 
quently there  is  no  apostolical  ministry  in  the  church  of 
England.  ,•    :  ,  >       ,,  .     j 

Answer.  As  this  is  the  grand  argument  of  papists  against  our 
churches,  I  shall  endeavour  to  answer  it  here  in  such  a  man- 
ner as  shall  help  to  close  their  mouths  on  the  subject.  (1.)  I 
must  insist  upon  it,  that  the  principles  of  the  church  of  Eng- 
land with  reference  to  the  authority  of  the  civil  magistrate  in 
ecclesiastical  affairs,  cannot  be  determined  in  any  way  by  the 
opinions  of  lawyers,  or  the  preambles  of  acts  of  parliament. 
We  no  where  subscribe  to  either  one  or  the  other.  (2.)  The 
opinion  of  the  Temporal  Power  itself,  as  to  its  own  authority 
in  ecclesiastical  affairs,  and  its  acts  in  accordance  with  such 
opinions,  are  perfectly  distinct  from  the  principles  of  the 
church  of  England  on  these  points.  We  are  not  bound  to 
adopt  such  opinions,  or  approve  such  acts  of  temporal  rulers, 
nor  even  to  approve  every  point  of  the  existing  law.  (3.)  The 
clergy  of  England,  in  acknowledging  the  supremacy  of  the 
king,  A.D.  1531,  did  so,  as  Burnet  proves,  with  the  important 


f  Milner,  letter  xxvi.  .  g  Canon  x. 

h  Chapter  I.  section  iii. 
VOL.  I.  — 31 


242  THE    BRITISH    CHURCHES.  [p.  I.  CH.  X. 

proviso,  ^^  quantum  -per  Christi  legem  licet  •'^  which  origi- 
nal condition  is  ever  to  be  supposed  in  our  acknowledg- 
ment of  the  royal  supremacy.  Consequently  we  give  no 
authority  to  the  prince,  except  what  is  consistent  with  the 
maintenance  of  all  those  rights,  hberties,  jurisdictions,  and 
spiritual  powers,  Avhich  "  the  law  of  Christ "  confers  on  his 
church,  (4.)  The  church  of  England  believes  the  jurisdiction 
and  commission  of  her  clergy  to  come  from  God,  by  apostolical 
succession,  as  is  evident  from  the  Ordination  Services,  and  has 
hQen  proved  by  the  papist  Milner  himself  (Letters  to  a  Pre- 
bendary, lett.  viii) ;  and  it  is  decidedly  the  doctrine  of  the  great 
majority  of  her  theologians.  (5.)  The  acts  of  English  mon- 
archs  have  been  objected  in  proof  of  their  views  on  the  subject. 
We  are  not  bound  to  subscribe  to  those  views.  If  their  acts 
were  wrong  in  any  case,  we  never  approved  them,  though  we 
may  have  been  obliged  by  circumstances  to  submit  to  intrusions 
and  usurpations.  But  since  this  is  a  favourite  topic  with 
Romanists,  let  us  view  the  matter  a  little  on  another  side.  I 
ask  then,  whether  the  parliaments  of  France  did  not  for  a  long 
series  of  years,  exercise  jurisdiction  over  the  administration  of 
the  sacraments,  compelling  the  Roman  bishops  and  priests  of 
France  to  give  the  sacraments  to  Jansenists,  whom  they  beheved 
to  be  heretics  ?  Did  they  not  repeatedly  judge  in  questions  of 
faith,  viz.  as  to  the  obligation  of  the  Bull  "  Unigenitus  "  ? 
Did  they  not  take  cognizance  of  questions  of  faith  and  discipline 
to  such  a  degree,  that  they  were  said  to  resemble  "  a  school  of 
theology  ?"  I  ask  whether  the  clergy  of  France  in  their  convo- 
cations, were  not  wholhj  under  the  control  of  the  king,  who 
could  proscribe  their  subjects  of  debate,  prevent  them  from 
debating,  prorogue,  dissolve,  &c.  Did  they  not  repeatedly  leg 
in  vain  from  the  kings  of  France,  for  a  long  series  of  years,  to 
be  permitted  to  hold  provincial  synods  for  the  suppression  of  im- 
morality, heresy,  and  infidelity  ?  Is  not  this  liberty  still  withheld 
from  them,  and  from  every  other  Roman  church  in  Europe  ? 
I  further  ask,  whether  the  emperor  Joseph  II.  did  not  enslave 
the  churches  of  Germany  and  Italy  ;  whether  he  did  not  sup- 


OBJECT.]  OBJECTIONS. — REGAL    SUPREMACt.  243 

press  monasteries  suppress  and  unite  bishoprics,  whether  he 
did  not  suspend  the  bisliops  from  conferring  orders,  exact  from 
them  oaths  of  obedience  to  all  his  measures  pxeseni  and  future, 
issue  royal  decrees  for  removing  images  from  churches,  and 
for  the  regulation  of  divine  worship  down  to  the  minutest 
points,  even  to  the  number  of  candles  at  mass  ?  Whether  he 
did  not  take  on  himself  to  silence  preachers  who  had  declaim- 
ed against  persons  of  unsound  faith  ?  Whether  he  did  not  issue 
decrees  against  the  Bull  "  Unigenitus,"  thus  interfering  with 
the  doctrinal  decisions  of  the  whole  Roman  church  ?  I  ask 
whether  this  conduct  was  not  accurately  imitated  by  the  grand 
duke  of  Tuscany,  the  king  of  Naples,  the  duke  of  Parma  ? 
whether  it  did  not  become  prevalent  in  almost  every  part  of 
the  Roman  church,  and  whether  its  effects  do  not  continue  to 
the  present  day  ?  I  again  ask  whether  "  Organic  Articles  " 
were  not  enacted  by  Buonaparte  in  the  new  Galilean  church, 
which  placed  every  thing  in  ecclesiastical  affairs  under  the  gov- 
ernment ?  Whether  the  bishops  were  not  forbidden  by  law  to 
confer  orders  without  the  permission  of  government'?  Whe- 
ther the  obvious  intention  was  not  to  place  the  priests,  even  in 
their  spiritual  functions ,  under  the  civil  powers  ?  And  in  fine, 
whether  those  obnoxious  "  Organic  Articles"  are  not,  up  to  the 
present  day,  in  almost  every  point,  in  force  ?  I  again  inquire 
whether  the  order  of  Jesuits  was  not  suppressed  by  the  mere 
civil  powers,  in  Portugal,  Spain,  France,  Italy,  &c. ;  whether 
convents,  monasteries,  confraternities,  friars,  and  monks,  and 
nuns,  of  every  sort  and  kind,  were  not  extinguished,  suppress- 
ed, annihilated  by  roijal  com^nissions,  and  by  the  temporal 
power,  in  France,  Germany,  Austria,  Italy,  Sicily,  Spain, 
Portugal,  &c.  &c. ;  and  in  opposition  to  the  petitions  and  pro- 
tests of  the  pope  and  the  bishops  ?  I  again  ask  whether  the 
king  of  Sicily  does  not  in  his  "  Tribunal  of  the  Monarchy,"  up 
to  the  present  day,  try  ecclesiastical  causes,  censure,  excom- 
municate, absolve?  Whether  this  tribunal  did  not  in  1712 
give  absolution  from  episcopal  excommunications  ;  and  whe- 
ther it  was  not  restored  by  Benedict  XIII.  in  1728  ?     Is  there  a 


244  .    THE    BRITISH    CHURCHES.  [P.  I.  CH.  X. 

Roman  church  on  the  continent  of  Europe,  where  the  clergy 
can  communicate  freely  with  him  whom  they  regard  as  their 
spiritual  head  ;  or  where  all  papal  bulls,  rescripts,  briefs,  &c. 
are  not  subjected  to  a  rigorous  surveillance  on  the  part  of  gov- 
ernment, and  allowed  or  disallowed  at  its  pleasure  ?  In  fine, 
has  not  Gregory  XVI.  himself  been  compelled  in  his  Encyclical 
Letter  of  1832,  to  utter  the  most  vehement  complaints  and 
lamentations,  at  the  degraded  condition  of  the  Roman  Obe- 
dience ?  Does  he  not  confess  that  the  church  is  "  subjected  to 
earthly  considerations,^^  "  reduced  to  a  base  servitude,''''  *'  the 
rights  of  its  bishops  trampled  on  V  These  are  all  certain 
facts  :  I  appeal  in  proof  of  them  to  the  Roman  historians,  and 
to  many  other  writers  of  authority  ;^  and  they  form  but  a  part 
of  what  might  be  said  on  this  subject.  Romanists  should 
blush  to  accuse  the  church  of  England  for  the  acts  of  our  civil 
rulers  in  ecclesiastical  matters.  They  should  remember  those 
words  :  "  Thou  hypocrite,  first  cast  out  the  beam  out  of  thine 
own  eye  ;  and  then  shalt  thou  see  clearly  to  cast  out  the  mote 
out  of  thy  brother's  eye." 

But  it  will  be  objected,  all  this  was  contrary  at  least  to  the 
principles  of  the  Roman  church,  while  English  theologians,  on 
the  contrary,  exaggerate  the  authority  of  the  civil  magistrate  in 
ecclesiastical  affairs.  I  admit  unequivocally,  that  some  of  our 
theologians  have  spoken  unadvisedly  on  this  subject.  But  what 
of  that  ?  Can  they  have  gone  further  than  the  whole  school  of 
Galilean  writers,  of  modern  canonists,  and  reforming  theologi- 

'  See  Memoircs  pour  servir  a  I'Histoire  Eccl.  &c.  xviiie  siecle  ;  Me- 
moires  sur  les  Affaires  Ecclesiast.  de  France  ;  La  Mennais,  Reflexions 
sur  I'Egliseen  France,  Essai  sur  I'Indifference,  Affaires  de  Rome;  Me- 
moires  Historiques  sur  Pie  VI.  et  son  Pontifical  (by  Bourgoing) ;  Bou- 
vier,  Episc.  Cenomanensis,  de  Vera  Ecclesia,  Appendix  ;  and  the  "  Re- 
port from  the  Select  Committee  on  the  regulations  of  Roman  Catholic 
subjects  in  foreign  countries"  (Parliamentary  Papers,  1816).  This  Re- 
port contains  a  mass  of  authentic  documents  of  the  highest  importance, 
which  it  is  impossible  to  find  elsewhere.  L'Ami  de  la  Religion,  a  religious 
periodical,  published  at  Paris,  and  which  has  existed  ever  since  the  restora- 
tion of  the  Bourbons,  is  also  full  of  valuable  details. 


OBJECT.]  OBJECTIONS. REGAL  SUPREMACY.  245 

ans,  in  the  Roman  church,  whose  object  is  to  overthrow  the  pa- 
pal power,  and  render  the  church  subservient  in  all  things  to 
the  state  ?  Do  Romanists  imagine  that  we  are  ignorant  of  the 
principles  of  Pithou  and  the  Galilean  school,  of  Giannone,  Van 
Espen,  Zallwein,  De  Honthiem,  Ricci,  Eybel,  Sloch,  Rech- 
berger,  Oberhauser,  Riegger,  Cavallari,  Tamburini,  and  fifty- 
others,  who  were  tinged  with  the  very  principles  imputed  to  us  ? 
Do  they  forget  that  their  clergy  in  many  parts  have  petitioned 
princes  to  remove  the  canonical  law  of  celibacy  ?  In  fine,  is  it 
not  well  known,  that  there  is  a  conspiracy  among  many  of  their 
theologians  to  subject  the  discipline  of  the  church  to  the  civil 
magistrate?  It  is  really  too  much  for  Romanists  to  assail  us,  on  the 
very  points  where  they  are  themselves  most  vulnerable,  and  where 
they  are  actually  most  keenly  suflTering.  Our  churches,  though 
subject  to  some  inconveniences,  and  lately  aggrieved  by  the 
suppression  of  bishoprics  in  Ireland,  contrary  to  the  solemn  pro- 
tests of  the  bishops  and  clergy,  are  yet  in  a  far  more  respectable 
and  independent  position,  than  the  Roman  churches.  Those 
amongst  us  who  maintain  the  highest  principles  on  the  spiritual 
jurisdiction  of  the  church,  have  reason  to  feel  thankful,  that  we 
have  not  yet  fallen  to  the  level  of  the  church  of  Rome. 

OBJECTIONS    OF    DISSENTERS.  , 

XIV.  The  church  of  England  contradicts  Scripture,  (Eph.  i. 
22.)  which  declares  that  Christ  alone  is  the  head  of  the  church  ; 
for  she  makes  the  king  her  head. 

Answer.  (1.)  She  does  not  acknowledge  the  king  as  head  of 
the  universal  church,  which  alone  is  spoken  of  in  that  passage. 
(2.)  She  only  attributes  to  him  temporal  and  external  authority, 
but  no  jurisdiction  purely  spiritual,  which  belongs  to  the  minis- 
ters of  God  by  divine  institution.  (3.)  The  church  of  England,  as 
I  have  already  said,  is  not  bound  to  approve  all  the  opinions  or 
acts  of  civil  governors  or  of  lawyers  ;  they  may  perhaps  exag- 
gerate the  authority  of  temporal  rulers  in  ecclesiastical  affairs  ; 
but  the  church  of  England  is  not  obliged  to  subscribe  to  any  of 


246  THE  BRITISH  CHURCHES.  [p.  I.  CH.  X. 

their  opinions,  (4.)  Dissenters  admit  that  from  the  time  of  Con- 
stantine  the  Great,  the  civil  magistrate  exercised  various  pow- 
ers over  the  church.  And  not  merely  the  unreformed  churches 
of  the  East  and  West,  but  the  Lutherans,  Zuinghans,  Calvin- 
ists,  and  Presbyterians,  universally  acted  on,  and  adopted  the 
principle  of  the  authority  of  the  civil  magistrate  in  some  eccle- 
siastical affairs.  The  Puritans  of  England  availed  themselves 
of  the  aid  of  the  civil  power  ;  and  the  community  of  Indepen- 
dents alone  exclaimed  against  all  authority  of  the  magistrate  in 
ecclesiastical  matters.  From  these  facts  I  argue  thus.  The 
civil  magistrates'  authority  was  acknowledged  and  admitted  to 
extend  to  some  church  matters  by  the  universal  church,  and  even 
by  all  sects  from  the  age  of  Constantino  to  the  seventeenth  cen- 
tury. Therefore  this  admission  cannot  be  antichristian,  or  un- 
church any  society  which  maintains  it,  for  the  church  of  Christ 
can  never  fail,  and  therefore  can  never  embrace  antichristian 
doctrine.  It  is  utterly  impossible  then,  that  such  a  doctrine 
can  be  antichristian  ;  and  we  may  conclude,  that  the  objection 
itself  is  founded  in  a  schismatical  principle,  and  evidently  tends 
to  heresy.  (5.)  Dissenters  cannot  bring  this  objection  against 
the  church  of  England,  for  some  of  their  own  most  eminent  wri- 
ters, such  as  Owen,  Gill,  &c.  have  admitted  the  authority  of  the 
civil  magistrate  in  ecclesiastical  affairs.  The  Nonconformists 
of  1662  whom  they  praise,  and  from  whom  they  even  pretend 
to  be  in  part  spiritually  descended,  held  occasional  communion 
Avilh  the  church  of  England,  thereby  acknowledging  her  a  Chris- 
tian church  notwithstanding  her  recognition  of  the  regal  supre- 
macy. And  what  is  still  more  cogent  is,  that  the  ministers  of 
every  dissenting  denomination  loithout  exception,  actually  sub- 
scribed to  the  royal  supremacy  as  explained  in  the  Thirty-nine 
Articles  up  to  the  year  1779.''     Now  if  dissenters  pretend  that 

^  Bythe  Act  of  Toleration  (1  Will,  and  Mar.  c.  18),  confirmed  10  Anne, 
c.  2,  dissenters  were  exempted  from  the  penalties  of  the  law,  only  on  condi- 
tion of  their  subscribing  and  repeating  the  declaration  against  tran5?ubstan- 
tiation,  invocation  of  saints,  and  the  sacrifice  of  the  mass,  made  by  parlia- 


OBJECT.]      OBJECTIONS, — A  PARLIAMENTARY  CHURCH.  247 

the  acknowledgment  of  the  royal  supremacy  is  antichristian, 
they  must  consign  to  perdition  all  their  own  predecessors  ;  and 
further,  as  a  mere  act  of  parliament  could  not,  by  their  own  ad- 
mission, make  a  church  ;  so  if  they  had  previously  been  apos- 
tate, and  no  true  churches  ;  they  could  not  have  become  so  by 
the  act  of  parliament  in  1779.  Such  are  the  perplexities  into 
which  dissenters  fall,  in  opposing  themselves  to  the  doctrine  and 
practice  of  the  catholic  church. 

XV.  The  church  of  England  is  merely  a  human  institution, 
founded  and  maintained  by  act  of  parliament.  Therefore  it 
cannot  be  a  part  of  the  church  of  Christ. 

Answer.  I  positively  deny  that  the  church  of  England  was 
founded  by  act  of  parliament,  and  require  the  act  to  be  produced 
which  pretended  to  found  it.  If  it  be  said  that  our  church  was 
founded  in  the  time  of  Henry  VIII. ,  I  reply  by  adducing  the  first 
act  of  parliament  in  the  controversy  between  England  and  the 
Roman  pontiif.  The  act  against  appeals  acknowledges  that 
"  there  were  in  the  spirituality,  as  there  had  been  at  all  times, 
men  of  such  integrity  and  sufficiency,  that  they  might  deter- 
mine all  doubts  within  the  kingdom,"  and  that  "the  king's  most 
noble  progenitors,  and  the  antecessors  of  the  nobles  of  this 
realm,  have  sufficiently  endowed  the  said  church."^     The  act 


ment,  30  Car.  II.  c.  1.  And  their  teachers  were  only  qualified  by  making 
and  subscribing-  the  said  declaration,  and  declaring  their  approbation  of,  and 
subscribing  the  Thirty-nine  Articles,  except  the  XXXI Vth,  XXX Vth, 
and  the  XXXVIth,  and  except  also  those  words  of  the  XXth  article  "The 
church  hath  power  to  decree  rites  and  ceremonies,  and  authority  in  contro- 
versies of  faith."  No  objection  was  allowed  to  the  XXXVIIth  Article, 
concerning  the  civil  magistrate,  including  the  doctrine  of  the  royal  supre- 
macy.— See  Grey's  Eccl.  Law,  p.  170 — 172.  Anabaptist  teachers  were 
obliged  to  perform  the  same  conditions :  except  that  they  were  excused 
from  subscribing  the  XXVIIth  Article,  concerning  infant  baptism.  Qua- 
kers were  obliged  to  subscribe  the  above  declaration,  a  declaration  of  fideli- 
ty to  the  king,  and  of  his  supremacy  ;  and  a  profession  of  their  belief  in 
the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  and  the  inspiration  of  the  Scripture. — Ibid. 
'  Burnet's  Reformation,  vol.  i.  p.  232.  (Oxford  ed.  1816.) 


248  THE    BRITISH  CHURCHES.  [P.  I.  CH.  X. 

■  for  the  royal  supremacy-  declared,  that  the  king  had  been 
acknowledged  supreme  head  of  the  church  of  England  ;"'there- 
])y  proving  that  the  church  was  already  in  existence  ;  and  in  fine, 
the  act  for  the  deprivation  of  Campegius  and  Hierome,  again 

_  declares,  that  "before  this  time  the  church  of  England,  by  the 
king's  most  nohle  progenitors,  and  the  nobles  of  the  same,  hath 
been  founded,  ordained,  and  established  in  the  estate  and  degree 
of  prelatic  dignities,  and  other  promotions  spiritual,"  6cc.^ 
Therefore  the  church  of  England  had  been  founded  before  the 
time  of  Henry  VIIL  even  by  the  admissions  of  parliament  itself, 
and  not  founded  by  parliajnent.     In  truth,  it  would  have  been 

■  impossible  to  affirm  the  contrary  with  any  decency,  because  it 
is  certain  that  the  church  of  England  was  in  existence  a  thousand 
years  before  parliaments  were  heard  of,  and  many  hundreds  of 
years  before  there  was  a  king  of  England.  The  perpetual  ex- 
istence of  this  church  is  further  proved  by  the  Magna  Charta  of 
king  John,  confirmed  by  every  one  of  the  succeeding  kings  of 
England,  the  first  article  of  which  guarantees  the  rights  of  "  the 
church  of  England.'''  In  fine,  it  is  well  known  to  every  one, 
that  the  bishops,  chapters,  and  clergy  of  the  present  day,  are,  in 
the  eye  of  the  law,  the  legitimate  successors  of  those  who  lived 
six  hundred  years  ago  ;  and  that  legal  evidence  of  their  rights  at 
that  time,  is  in  many  cases  ofl'ered  and  admitted  in  proof  of  the 
rights  of  the  present  incumbents.  Therefore  it  is  altogether 
ridiculous  to  pretend,  that  the  church  was  founded  by  the  civil 
power  in  the  reign  of  Henry  VIIL,  Edward  VI.,  or  Elizabeth. 
(2.)  As  to  the  maintenance  and  support  of  the  church  of  Eng- 
land, her  property,  institutions,  &c.  by  law,  the  dissenters  them- 
selves are  protected  in  the  same  manner.  This  was  lately  ex- 
emplified in  the  case  of  Lady  Hewley's  Charity.  The  dissent- 
ers deeming  its  funds  misapplied  to  the  support  of  a  religion 
different  from  that  designed  by  the  foundress,  petition  the  king's 
court  of  equity  to  judge  this  doctrinal  fact,   and  to  transfer  the 

■"  Burnet's  Reformation,  vol.  i.  p.  205.  vol.  iii.  p.  90 — 92. 

n  25  Hen.  VIIL  act.  v.  See  Burnet's  Records,  vol.  i.  part  ii.  p.  189. 


OBJECT.]        OBJECTIONS. — IMPOSITION  OF  CREEDS.  249 

property  to  the  right  hands.  They  succeed,  and  enter  without 
scruple  on  the  possession  of  what  the  law  has  given  to  them. 
The  Roman  and  Greek  churches  are  equahy  protected  by  the 
civil  authorities  in  their  respective  localities  :  and  it  is  certain 
that  in  all  ages  from  the  time  of  Constantino,  the  greater  part  of 
the  universal  church  has  been  supported,  and  its  regulations  en- 
forced by  the  additional  authority  of  Christian  princes. 

XVI.  The  imposition  of  creeds  and  articles  of  faith  is  an  in- 
vasion of  the  kingly  prerogative  of  Christ,  and  is  antichristian. 
Consequently  the  church  of  England  cannot  be  a  church  of 
Christ. 

Answer.  If  it  be  antichristian  to  impose  creeds  and  articles 
of  faith,  it  must  be  equally  antichristian  to  subscribe  them  .  but 
all  dissenting  ministers  whatever,  up  to  the  year  1779,  sub- 
scribed the  Articles  and  Creed  of  the  church  of  England."  There- 
fore they  must,  on  this  principle,  have  been  antichristian ;  and 
what  are  we  to  think  of  all  the  dissenting  churches  which 
communicated  with  them,  in  which  they  presided,  and  which 
are  derived  from  them  ?  Nor  is  this  all.  The  very  act  of  1779 
compelled  them  to  declare  solemnly  their  belief  in  the  inspira- 
tion of  Scripture,  to  take  the  oath  of  supremacy,  and  make  tho 
declaration  against  transubstantiation,  &c.p  So  that  they  were 
still  involved  in  the  very  same  practices  which  they  object  to  us  ; 
and,  for  aught  I  know,  may  continue  so  to  the  present  day. 
How  utterly  absurd  therefore  is  such  an  objection  in  their 
mouths  against  the  church  of  England !  Besides,  it  is  well 
known  that  they  themselves  exact  professions  of  faith  from  their 
ministers  before  ordination. i 


"  By  the  Act  of  Toleration,  1  Will,  and  Mary,  c.  18,  above  alluded  to. 

p  Adam's  Religious  World,  vol.  iii.  p.  40. 

q  "  WT'e  conceive  the  conduct  of  those  bodies  which  require  a  specific  con- 
fession of  faith  from  the  individual  who  is  proposed  as  their  instructor,  while 
they  do  not  previously  prescribe  a  certain  fixed  and  systematic  standard  of 
sentiment  as  the  sine  qua  non — most  accordant  with  Scripture,  reason,  an  d 
the. interests  of  the  church  of  Christ."— Library  of  Eccl.  Knowledge  (Re- 
voL.  I. — 32 


250  THE  BRITISH  CHURCHES.  [p.  I.  CH.  X. 

XVII.  The  church  of  England  cannot  be  a  Christian  church, 
because  she  does  not  maintain  apostoHcal  disciphne  in  the  cen- 
sure and  expulsion  of  such  members  as  offend  against  the  laws 
of  Christian  sanctity. 

Answer.  (1.)  The  church  of  England  does  so,  at  least  in 
principle.  No  laws  can  more  strictly  enjoin  discipline  than  the 
canons  of  1603,  and  her  ministers  are  directed  to  refuse  the  Sa- 
crament to  notorious  offenders.  However,  it  must  always  re- 
quire judgment  and  caution  to  apply  such  severe  remedies,  and 
if  the  conversion  of  sinners  can  be  accomplished  by  the  milder 
method  of  persuasion,  it  is  on  all  accounts  much  more  desirable. 
Yet  instances  do  occur  occasionally,  wdien  this  discipline  is  put 
in  force,  though  it  must  be  acknowledged  that  the  wishes  of  the 
church  are  not  fully  attended  to  in  these  respects.  But, 
however  this  may  be,  it  is  certain  that  dissenters  cannot  consist- 
ently deny  the  church  of  England  to  be  a  true  church,  because 
discipline  is  neglected  by  some  of  her  members  ;  for,  (2.)  Dis- 
senters are  liable  to  the  very  same  objection  themselves.  They 
acknowledge  that  in  their  own  churches  the  same  or  greater 
defects  of  discipline  exist :  "A  much  greater  evil,  however,  is 
to  be  found  in  the  retaining  of  persons  as  church-memhers,  when 
their  character  plainly  unfits  them  for  such  a  station.  Instances 
have  not  been  wanting  in  which  persons  of  notorious  immora- 
lity, such  as  habitual  drunkards  and  others,  have  remained  in 
undisturbed  possession  of  their  membership  ;  while  in  other 
cases  there  has  been  manifested  a  considerable  unwillingness  to 
inquire  into  accusations,  to  bring  faults  to  light,  and  to  act  with 
consistency  and  decision  upon  them  when  proved."''     Now, 


ligious  Creeds,  p.  127).  In  short,  we  are  apostate,  because  our  clergy  are 
required  to  confess  the  faith  in  the  church's  words  :  dissenters  are  Christians 
because  their  ministers  are  required  to  make  the  same  confession  in  their 
own  words.  The  question  of  Christianity  does  not  in  the  least  depend  on 
doctrine  but  on  the  far  more  important  consideration  of  the  right  of  extem- 
porary composition. 

'  Library  of  Eccl.  Knowledge,  vol.  ii.  p.  185.     Essays  on  Ch.  Polity. 


OBJECT.]         OBJECTIONS. — IMPERFECT  DISCIPLINE.  251 

though  it  is  manifest  that  several  of  their  churches  are  thus  de 
ficient  in  disciphne,  yet  they  are  still  considered  by  dissenters 
as  Christian  churches  ;  nor  do  we  hear  of  any  inquiry  into  the 
conduct  of  particular  churches  in  this  respect,  nor  of  the  exclu- 
sion of  any  one  of  them  from  the  communion  of  the  remainder. 
Therefore  it  is  plain  that  dissenters  are  inconsistent  in  denying 
the  church  of  England  to  be  a  true  church  for  similar  defects  of 
discipline  ;  and  the  simple  fact,  that  what  is  tolerable  in  them- 
selves, is  regarded  as  a  crime  in  us,  proves  that  they  are  guided 
in  their  opposition  to  the  church  by  mere  prejudice  and  love  of 
controversy. 

XVIII.  The  ordinations  of  the  British  clergy  being  derived 
from  the  popish  and  antichristian  church,  cannot  be  apostolical 
or  Christian.  Therefore  the  British  church  cannot  be  a  true 
church,  having  no  true  ministry. 

Answer.  The  ordinations  of  the  church  of  England  are  de- 
rived by  a  regular  succession  within  herself  in  all  ages  from 
the  apostles.  But  I  have  already  denied  that  this  church  ever 
fell  into  heresy  or  apostacy,  though  for  a  time  abuses  prevailed 
to  a  certain  degree  among  us.  The  chief  objections  to  the 
Christianity  of  the  Western  churches  before  the  reformation, 
will  be  considered  in  the  next  chapter. 

XIX.  The  church  of  England  cannot  be  a  true  church,  for 
all  the  baptisms  of  her  members  are  invalid,  infant  baptism  be- 
ing contrary  to  the  institution  of  Christ. 

Answer.  A  difficulty  of  this  kind,  raised  by  a  mere  handful 
of  professing  Christians,  in  opposition  to  the  judgment  and 
practice  of  the  church  and  of  all  sects,  in  all  ages,  from  the 
beginning,  is  not  worthy  of  attention.  We  may  refuse  all  con- 
troversy on  the  subject,  for,  as  St.  Augustine  says,  "  Si  quid 
horum  tota  per  orbem  frequentat  ecclesia  .  .  .  quin  ita  faciendum 
sit,  disputare,  insolentissimJB  insanise  est."^  In  fact,  there  can- 
not be  a  more  certain  mark  of  heresy  and  apostacy  from  Christ, 
than  such  a  condemnation  of  what  the  church  in  all  ages  has 

«  Augustinus,  epist.  54.  alias  118.  torn.  ii.  p.  126. 


252  "  THE  BRITISH  CHURCHES.  [p,  I,  CH.  X. 

received  and  approved.  If  infant  baptism  render  our  churches 
apostate,  all  churches  must  have  been  so  for  many  ages,  and 
therefore  the  church  of  Christ  must  have  entirely  perished, 
contrary  to  the  promises  of  holy  Scripture. 


APPENDIX   TO   CHAP.    X. 

ON      INDIFFERENCE      IN     RELIGION. 

One  of  the  common  objections  of  Romanists  against  the 
church  of  England  is  founded  on  the  existence  of  religious  in- 
difference among  some  of  her  members,  or  the  persuasion  that 
all  sects  and  doctrines  are  equally  secure,  and  that  no  particu- 
lar belief  or  communion  is  necessary  to  salvation.  Bossuet, 
Milner,  and  others,  have  asserted  that  this  system  is  extensive- 
ly prevalent  amongst  us,  and  have  employed  it  as  a  proof  that 
our  churches  are  not  Christian. 

The  origin  of  religious  indifference  may  be  traced  indirectly 
to  the  denial  of  all  church  authority,  and  the  assertion  of  the 
unlimited  right  of  private  judgment,  which  arose  among  the 
Socinians,*  and  w^ere  sometimes  incautipusly  maintained  even 
by  members  of  the  foreign  reformed  societies  ;  vv^hence  the 
Independents  and  dissenters  also  derived  them.  It  is  plain 
howrever,  that  although,  in  the  imagined  exigencies  of  contro- 
versy for  defence  of  the  truth,  some  individuals  during  the  time 
of  the  Reformation,  may  have  let  fall  expressions,  which,  in 
their  legitimate  consequences,  might  actually  remove  the  ne- 
cessity of  adhering  to  particular  tenets,  those  consequences 
were  not  known  or  allowed  by  them  ;  for  all  the  Reformed 
communities  subscribed  and  imposed   Confessions  of  faith,  in 


'  Mosheim  says,  they  "  permit  every  one  to  follow  his  particular  fancy  in 
composing  his  theological  system,  provided  they  acknowledge  in  general 
the  truth  and  authenticity  of  the  history  of  Christ,  and  adhere  to  the  pre- 
cepts the  Gospel  lays  down  for  the  regulation  of  our  lives  and  actions." — 
Eccl.  Hist,  cent,  xvi.  sect.  3.  part  ii.  ch.  4.  s.  16. 


APPEND.]  INDIFFERENCE    IN    RELIGION.  253 

which  the  absolute  necessity  of  beUeving  certain  doctrines  is 
asserted,  and  heretics,  are  consigned  to  perdition.  There  can 
be  no  doubt  indeed,  that  in  the  sixteenth  century,  any  one 
who  had  advanced  openly  the  doctrine  of  indifference,  would 
have  been  regarded  by  the  reformed  as  an  infidel,  and  most 
probably  experienced  the  fate  of  Servetus.'^  Chillingworlh,  in 
the  vain  attempt  to  defend  on  common  principles,  all  who  were 
separated  from  the  Roman  church,  and  in  practically  denying 
to  the  church  all  authority  in  matters  of  faith,  leaving  each  man 
to  form  his  own  religion  from  the  Bible  only,  by  his  indepen- 
dent inquiries,  removed  some  of  the  strongest  barriers  against 
the  intrusion  of  heresy ;""  and  his  principle,  that  Scripture  was 
so  clear  in  all  necessary  matters,  that  he  who  received  it  as  his 
rule  of  faith,  could  not  be  a  heretic,  opened  a  way  for  the  doc- 
trine of  indifference.  Still,  as  Chillingworth  did  not  draw  the 
conclusions  vyhich  led  to  this  result,  and  as  his  work  contained 
acute  though  unsound  arguments,  in  favour  of  what  people  wished 
to  defend,  it  obtained  a  more  considerable  name  than  it  deserved ; 
and  his  arguments  were  unsuspectingly  adopted  by  many,  who 

"  The  dissenters  observe  of  the  "  first  reformers,"  that  "  the  views  they 
entertained  of  the  constitution  of  the  church  were  deficient  in  some  impor- 
tant respects.  The  right  of  the  civil  magistrate  f  o  control  its  proceedings, 
and  to  visit  the  delinquencies  of  its  members  with  temporal  inflictions,  was 
very  generally  admitted.  The  terms  of  fellowship  were  rendered  narrower 
and  more  sectarian,  than  in  the  primitive  church.  Uniformity  of  opinion 
rather  than  unity  of  spirit  was  sought ;  and  public  formularies  and  sys- 
tems of  faith  had  an  importance  attached  to  them,  superior  to  that  with 
which  the  word  of  God,  in  many  cases  appeared  to  be  invested.  As  the 
natural  result  of  such  views,  measures  were  adopted  for  the  suppression  of 
what  was  esteemed  heresy,  and  the  defence  and  extension  of  the  truth  over 
which  piety  must  ever  mourn." — ^Library  of  Eccl.  Knowledge  (Correct 
Views  of  the  Ch.  p.  21).  After  this,  it  is  strange  the  dissenters  can  pre- 
tend that  they  hold  the  principles  of  the  Reformation. 

V  Whether  Chillingworth  himself  was  tainted  with  the  Arian  heresy  or 
not,  is  a  matter  of  dispute  ;  but  it  is  certain  that  he  has  been  the  idol  of  Arians 
and  Socinians,  as  well  as  of  other  dissenters.  Micaiah  Towgood,  an  Arian, 
in  his  Defence  of  Dissent,  extols  him  most  highly. 


254  THE    BRITISH    CHURCHES.  [p.  I.  CH.  X. 

would  have  shrunk  with  horror  from  the  conclusions  which 
others  afterwards  deduced  from  them.  The  history  of  indiiler- 
ence,  in  England,  properly  begins  with  Hoadly  ;  who,  in  the 
early  part  of  the  eighteenth  century,  first  rendered  this  system 
known.  The  doctrines  maintained  by  him  and  his  disciples, 
were  as  follows  : 

I.  That  the  true  church  of  Christ  being  invisible,  it  is  not 
a  matter  of  necessity  to  be  of  any  particular  visible  church. 

II.  That  Christ  being  the  only  lawgiver  and  judge  in  his 
church,  there  is  no  other  authority  in  the  church  in  matters  of 
faith  and  practice,  affecting  salvation.  That  it  is  therefore 
needless  to  hold  any  particular  creed  or  interpretation  of  Scrip- 
ture, and  sinful  to  require  from  others  the  belief  of  any. 

III.  That  sincerity,  or  our  own  persuasion  of  the  correctness 
of  our  opinions  (whether  well  or  ill  founded),  is  the  only  con- 
dition of  acceptance  with  God. 

IV.  That  th^  apostolical  succession  of  the  clergy,  ministerial 
benedictions,  and  generally  the  sacraments  and  rites  of  the 
church,  are  trifling,  ridiculous,  or  unnecessary. 

y.  That  Christ's  kingdom  not  being  of  this  world,  all  tem- 
poral support  of  the  church  is  contrary  to  the  Gospel. 

These  were  really  the  doctrines  of  Hoadly,  as  may  be 
easily  seen  by  any  one  who  reads  his  "  Sermon  on  the  King- 
dom of  Christ,"  and  his  "  Preservative  against  the  principles, 
&c.  of  Nonjurors ;"  though  he  endeavoured  to  explain  away 
his  expressions,  when  in  danger  of  punishment.''^  The  fifth 
position  was  not  generally  sustained  by  his  disciples,  but  was 
adopted  by  the  dissenters,  and  forms  the  ivJioIe  basis  of  their 
argument  agaijist  church  establishments.  Their  arguments 
in  favour  of  dissent,  and  against  the  church  of  England,  are 
altogether  derived  from  the  preceding  principles  of  Hoadly.^ 

w  They  were  ably  refuted  by  Law,  in  his  three  "  Letters  to  Hoadly," 
and  by  a  multitude  a^orthodox  theologians. 

^  Micaiah  Towgobd  on  Dissent,  and  all  the  modern  dissenters,  take  no 
other  ground.     They  prove  that  the  Church  of  England  docs  claim  au- 


APPEND.]  '       INDIFFERENCE  IN  RELIGION.  255 

Those  principles  were  deemed  so  objectionable  and  dangerous, 
by  the  Convocation  of  the  church  of  England,  that  a  committee 
of  the  lower  house  was  appointed,  in  order  to  select  propositions 
from  Hoadly's  writings,  and  procure  his  censure  by  regular 
authority ;  but  before  his  trial  could  take  place,  the  Convocation 
was  prorogued  by  an  arbitrary  exercise  of  the  royal  prerogative, 
and  has  not  been  permitted  to  deliberate  since.  So  strongly 
were  the  clergy  opposed  to  indifference,  and  so  apprehensive 
were  the  government  of  their  resolution  in  respect  to  Hoadly. 
.  Blackburn,  in  his  anonymous  book,  "  The  Confessional," 
published  in  1766,  carried  out  these  principles  most  fully; 
contending,  that  the  imposition  of  creeds  and  Articles  of  Faith, 
was  an  infringement  on  Christ's  office,  a  usurpation,  and  a 
revolt ;  that  it  was  unlawful  to  submit  to  it ;  that  the  church 
of  England  was  inconsistent  in  requiring  assent  to  any  Creeds, 
Articles,  «&c.  and  that  each  individual  may,  if  he  pleases,  sepa- 
rate from  all  religions  and  all  churches  on  earth  !  That  Black- 
burn was  obliged  to  conceal  his  name,  is  another  proof  of  the 
general  and  strong  sentiment  of  the  church  of  England;''  and 

thority  in  matters  of  religion.  They  exaggerate  the  authority  of  the  tem- 
poral magistrate,  in  relation  to  the  church  ;  and  thence,  on  Hoadley's 
principles,  argue  that  it  is  unlawful  to  communicate  with  us.  Thajf^  also 
expressly  cite  Hoadly  and  his  disciples,  in  proof  of  dissenting  principles. 
Not  only  the  dissenters,  but  the  Romanists  were  supported  by  Hoadley's 
errors.  The. acute  controversialist,  Milner,  says  :  "  It  is  an  incontestable 
fact,  that  Bishop  Hoadly  has  surrendered  a  great  part  of  the  leading 
points  of  controversy,  which  the  '  catholic  '  authors  of  the  two  preceding 
centuries  had  loaded  the  shelves  of  libraries  in  endeavouring  to  prove. 
Your  most  learned  and  able  writers  have  seen  and  lamented  the  event." — 
Letters  to  a  Prebendary,  lett.  viii.  It  would  be  easy  to  show  the  correct- 
ness of  this  statement.  Hoadly's  doctrine  on  the  eucharist  was  directly 
Socinian,  as  Bishop  Cleaver  remarked  in  his  Sermon  on  the  Sacrament, 
before  the  University  of  Oxford,  Nov.  2.5,  1787.  (2nd  ed.  p.  7.)  How- 
ever, if  we  have  had  a  Hoadly,  Romanists  have  had  a  Soanen,  a  Ricci, 
a  de  Hontheim,  a  Geddes,  and  a  Voltaire,  as  we  shall  see. 

y  The  judgment  of  the  dissenters,  as  to  Ids  doctrin^,  was  unequivocally 
manifested.     The  dissenting  congregation  in  the  Old  Jewry,  on  the  death 


256  THE  BRITISH  CHURCHES.  [p.  I.  Ch/x. 

an  additional  proof  was  afforded  in  1772,  when,  some  clergy 
haying  been  so  far  deluded  as  to  petition  parliament  to  be 
exempted  from  subscription  to  the  Articles,  their  request  was 
refused.^  A  few  writers,  in  later  times,  carried  these  views 
to  a  still  greater  length  ;  affirming,  though  still  with  no  small 
degree  of  cautit)n,  that  truth  in  religion  is  merely  the  opinion 
of  each  individual ;  that  all  theological  doctrines  are  human 
inventions  ;  that  Revelation  contains  no  doctrine,  but  is  merely 
a  collection  of  historical  *facts,  or  a  code  of  ethics';  that  all 
religions  are  equally  safe  ;  and,  that  no  religious  errors  whatever 
ought  to  be  censured  or  condemned.^  This  class  of  doctrines 
was  again  condemned,  in  the  writings  of  Dr.  Hampden,  by  the 
University  of  Oxford,  in  1836. 

The  system  of  religious  indifference  has,  however,  only  been 
avowed  by  a  mere  handful  of  persons  ;  and  although  they  have 
embraced  some  of  its  positions,  they  do  not  apparently,  as  yet, 
draw  the  conclusions,  which  would  at  once  open  the  door  to 
infidelity.  If  all  existing  doctrines,  ordinances,  worships,  and 
communions,  are  matters  of  indifference,  and  we  may  adopt 
any  or  none,  according  to  our  individual  taste  or  choice,  whe- 
ther well  or  ill-directed  ;  if  all  are  equally  safe;  then  we  cannot 
be  far  from  the  conclusion,  that  all  are  equally  true  and  equally 

of  Dr.  Chandler,  their  minister,  who  was  an  Arian,  actually  invited  Black- 
burn to  be  his  successor. 

'  Lindsey,  Disney,  Jebb,  Wakefield,  Evanson,  and  other  Socinians,  in 
despair  of  effecting  any  alteration  in  the  church  of  England,  avowed  their 
heresy,  and  separated  from  her  communion. 

*  It  will  be  curious  to  contrast  these  maxims  of  modern  philosophy, 
with  the  conduct  and  principles  of  the  Reformation.  (See  Chapter  XII. 
sect,  iii.)  The  well-knowTi  proposition  of  one  of  these  virriters,  that  all 
existing  sects  should  be  united  in  one  church  and  communion,  retaining  aU 
their  peculiar  doctrines  and  practices,  was,  however  apparently  absurd, 
based  on  the  principle,  that  all  doctrines  are  equally  safe.  This  proposal 
had  at  least  no  novelty  to  recommend  it.  M.  d'Huisseau,  protestant  min- 
ister at  Saumur,  in  the  17th  century,  published  a  "  Reunion  du  Clu-istian- 
isme,"  on  the  system  of  universal  toleration,  without  excluding  any  heretics, 
not  even  Socinians.     He  was  deposed  from  his  office  in  consequence. 


APPEND.]  INDIFFERENCE  IN  RELIGION.  257 

fake  ;  and,  tHercfore,  that  Christianity  itself  must  be  either 
obsolete  or  fabulous.  What  other  conclusion  can  follow,  if  it 
is  not  necessary  to  believe  any  particular,  definite,  doctrine  ; 
if  all  that  is  said  to  exist  of  Christian  faith  and  morality,  may 
be  disputed,  denied,  or  maintained  at  pleasure  ?  Christianity 
can  on  these  principles  be  nothing  but  one  philosophy  amongst 
the  many,  or  ratlier  one  name,  under  which  all  imaginable  con- 
tradictions and  falsehoods  may  find  refuge. 

But,  to  meet  the  objection  of  our  adversaries,  as  to  the  exist- 
ence of  such  opinions,  I  would  observe,  first,  that  the  Romanist 
Milner  himself  has  fully  proved,  that  Hoadly's  tenets  were 
entirely  opposed  to  the  religion  of  the  church  of  England  ;^ 
and  it  is  plain,  that  his  school  were  so  far  from  being  friendly 
to  this  church,  that  they  justified  all  sects  who  separated  from 
her,  and  in  return  were  hailed  by  them  as  friends  and  auxilia- 
ries, threw  contempt  on  her  ordinances,  accused  her  of  incon- 
sistency and  actual  impiety,  in  prescribing  the  belief  of  Scrip- 
tural and  apostolical  doctrines,  and  engaged  in  a  crusade  against 
her  Creeds  and  Articles.  Therefore,  there  is  no  community 
of  interest  or  faith  between  the  church  of  England  and  indiffer- 
ence, which  are  as  much  opposed  as  light  and  darkness. 
Secondly,  the  church  was  only  prevented  by  the  interference 
of  the  civil  powers,  from  extirpating  indifference  when  it  first 
showed  itself;  and  as  it  has  only  occasionally  arisen  since,  so 
it  has,  on  two  several  occasions,  been  checked  by  the  arm  of 
authority.  Thirdly,  the  catholic  church  was  obliged  to  endure 
the  presence  of  the  Arian  heresy,  during  the  greater  part  of 
the  fourth  century,  during  which  it  struggled  to  free  itself  from 
that  infidelity.  And  it  is  admitted,  by  Romanists  themselves, 
that  the  church  is  often  obliged,  by  various  good  motives,  to 
tolerate  heretics  for  a  time  ;  but  that  she  does  not  regard  them 
as  her  children.  Fourthly,  the  Roman  churches  themselves 
are  infected  ivith  the  very  same  evil,  for  we  learn  from  the 
encyclical  letter  of  Gregory  XVI.  a.d.  1832,  that  indifference 

b  Milner's  Letters  to  a  Prebendary,  lett.  viii. 
VOL.  I.— 33 


258  THE  BRITISH  CHURCHES.  [p,  I.  CH.  X. 

prevails  among  them  to  a  great  extent.'^  Fifthly,  those  who 
hold  the  doctrines  of  indifference,  are  as  few  in  number,  in 
proportion  to  the  church  generally,  as  the  Arians  were  at  the 
council  of  Nice  ;  and  their  doctrine  would  have  perished  long 
ago,  but  for  the  support  of  the  civil  magistrate.  For,  through 
the  merciful  protection  of  God,  the  clergy  and  people  of  our 
churches  have  no  inclination  for  sceptical  principles  even  under 
a  disguise,  but  remain  deeply  rooted  and  grounded  in  the  sim- 
plicity of  faith.  We  may  say,  with  the  holy  martyr  Cyprian  : 
*'  Nee  vos  moveat,  fratres  dilectissimi,  si  apud  quosdam  in 
novissimis  temporibus,  aut  lubrica  fides  nutat,  aut  Dei  timer 
irreligiosus  vacillat,  aut  pacifica  concordia  non  perseverat. 
Praenunciata  sunt  haec  futura  in  sseculi  fine  ....  Viderit  vel 
prsevaricatorum  numerus  vel  proditorum,  qui  nunc  in  ecclesia 
contra  ecclesiam  surgere,  et  fidem  pariter  ac  veritatem  labe- 
factare  coeperunt.  Permanet  apud  plurimos  sincera  mens  et 
religio  integra,  et  non  nisi  Domino  et  Deo  suo  anima  devota, 
nee  Christianam  fidem  aliena  perfidia  deprimit  ad  ruinam,  sed 
magis  excitat  et  exaltat  ad  gloriam ;  secundum  quod  beatus 
Apostolus  Paulus  hortatur  et  dicit :  Quid  enim  si  exciderunt  a 
fide  quidam  eorum,  nunquid  infideUtas  illorum  fidem  Dei 
evacuavit  ?     Absit."*^ 


■=  See  the  following  Chapter. 

''  Cyprianus,  Epist.  ad  Clerum  et  Plcbes,  in  Hispania,  de  Basilide  et 
Mart.  p.  167.  ed.  Pamel. 


CHAPTER  XL 

ON  THE  CHURCHES  OF  THE  ROMAN  OBEDIENCE. 

There  are  four  questions  for  consideration  with  regard  to 
the  churches  and  societies  of  the  Roman  Obedience.  First ; 
whether  they  continued  to  be  churches  of  Christ  up  to  the  Re- 
formation ?  Secondly  :  whether  they  remained  churches  of 
Christ  after  the  Reformation  ?  Thirdly  :  whether  they  consti- 
tute exclusively  the  catholic  church  ?  Fourthly :  whether  all  their 
societies  are  free  from  schism  and  heresy  ?  Of  the  churches  and 
societies  in  communion  with  Rome,  some  are  of  ancient  foun- 
dation, viz.  those  of  Italy,  Spain,  Portugal,  France,  Germany, 
Hungary,  Austria,  Poland.  Some  are  of  modern  foundation, 
viz.  those  of  South  America,  Mexico,  part  of  the  West  Indies, 
two  or  three  in  India,  the  Phihppine  Islands,  and  China.  Others, 
of  which  I  shall  hereafter  speak,  have  been  formed  within  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  catholic  churches  of  the  East  and  of  Britain. 

SECTION  I. 

WHETHER    THE    WESTERN    CHURCHES    CONTINUED    TO    BE 
CHURCHES    OF    CHRIST    TILL    THE    REFORMATION. 

I  only  speak  now  and  in  the  two  next  sections,  of  the  Roman 
churches  which  have  not  been  founded  within  the  jurisdiction 
of  other  churches,  and  of  these  I  maintain,  that  they  continued 
to  be  churches  of  Christ  up  to  the  period  of  the  Reformation. 

Every  one  admits  that  the  Western  churches  were,  in  the 
earliest  ages,  churches  of  Christ.  They  were  in  communion 
with  all  the  apostolical  churches  of  the  East,  and  with  the  great 
apostolical  church  of  Rome.  They  continued  in  communion 
with  the  East,  till  the  eleventh  century,  and  afterwards.  In 
fine,  no  period  can  be  assigned  at  which  they  ceased  to  be 
churches  of  Christ.  Scarcely  anything  can  be  objected  to 
them  during  these  ages,  which  would  not  apply  equally  to  the 


260  WESTERN    CHURCHES    CONTINUED         [P.  I.  CH.  XI, 

Eastern  church.  Their  union  with  the  civil  power  could  not 
render  them  apostate,  because  tlie  whole  church  would  equally 
have  been  apostate,  and  that  would  be  contrary  to  Christ's 
promises.  For  the  same  reason  their  connection  with  the  see 
of  Rome  could  not  make  them  apostate,  for  the  whole  catholic 
church,  until  the  eleventh  century,  communicated  with  that  see. 
They  possessed  every  external  mark  of  the  Christian  church, 
and  were  regularly  continued  from  age  to  age  by  the  ordina- 
tions of  clergy  and  the  admission  of  new  members  by  baptism. 
They  maintained  the  same  creeds  which  the  universal  church 
had  sanctioned,  adhered  to  the  definitions  of  faith  made  by  the 
catholic  church,  continued  the  use  of  rites  which  we  believe  to 
descend  from  the  apostles.  On  what  reasonable  ground  there- 
fore can  it  be  pretended,  that  the  Western  churches  did  not 
continue  always  to  be  churches  of  Christ '?  It  is  confessed 
that  some  doctrinal  errors,  and  some  superstitious  practices, 
prevailed  in  them  in  latter  ages  ;  but  it  has  been  already  ol)- 
served,  that  the  existence  of  some  faults  and  imperfections  by  no 
means  annuls  the  character  of  a  church  ;^  and,  as  in  the  present 
case,  it  arose  from  want  of  information  and  discussion,  and 
besides  no  article  of  the  faith^  appears  to  have  been  denied 
or  corrupted  by  these  churches  in  general,  there  seems  no  reason 
whatever  to  dispute  their  Christianity. 

In  fact,  this  has  been  admitted  by  all  wise  and  charitable 
men.     The  Lutherans  repeatedly  acknowledged  that  the  Ro- 

*  See  above,  Chapter  V.  section  iii. 

b  The  Confession  of  Augsburg  says  of  the  Lutheran  doctrine  :  "  There  is 
nothing  in  it,  which  differs  from  the  Scriptures  or  the  catholic  church,  or 
the  Roman  church  as  far  as  is  known  from  her  wTiters." — Confess.  August. 
Pars  i.  art.  22.  And  elsewhere  :  "  Since  the  churches  among  us  differ 
concerning  no  article  of  faith  (de  nullo  articulo  fidei)  from  the  catholic 
church,  but  only  omit  some  abuses,  which  are  novel,  and  received  contrary 
to  the  canons,  by  the  fault  of  the  times,"  &c. — Pars  ii.  prolog.  This  Con- 
fession of  Augsburg  was  received  by  the  Calvinists  about  15i57,  and  at  the 
Colloquy  of  Poissy  in  1561.  See  also  Archbishop  BramhaJl,  Replication 
to  the  bishop  of  Chalcedon. — Works,  p.  151. 


SECT.   I.]  CHRISTIAN   UP    TO   THE    REFORMATION.  261 

man  church  even  in  their  time  was  a  Christian  church. *=  Lu- 
ther himself  reckons  Bernard,  Francis,  and  Bonaventure 
among  the  saints,  though  they  hved  in  the  Western  church 
during  the  middle  ages.*^  The  Apology  of  the  Confession  of 
Augsburg  reckons  Bernard  and  Francis  as  saints.''  In  the 
Confession  of  Augsburg,  the  character  and  authority  of  the 
catholic,  and  even  the  Roman  church  are  acknowledged.^ 
Luther  himself,  in  1 534,  seventeen  years  after  he  had  begun 
his  career,  acknowledged,  most  unequivocally,  the  Christianity 
of  the  churches  in  obedience  to  Rome.  "  That  true  church  of 
Christ,"  he  says,  "  the  pillar  and  ground  of  the  truth,  is  the 
holy  place  wherein  the  abomination  stands.  And  in  this  church 
God  miraculously  and  powerfully  preserved  baptism  ;  moreover, 
in  the  public  pulpits  and  Lord's  day  sermons,  he  preserved  the 
text  of  the  Gospel  in  the  language  of  every  nation  ;  besides 
remission  of  sins  and  absolution,  as  well  in  confession  as  in 
public.  Again  the  sacrament  of  the  altar,  which  at  Easter 
time,  and  twice  or  thrice  in  the  year,  they  offered  to  Christians, 
though  deprived  of  one  species.  Fifth,  vocation  and  ordina- 
tion to  parishes,  and  the  ministry  of  the  word,  the  keys  to  bind 
and  loose,  and  to  console  in  the  agony  of  death.  For  among 
many  this  custom  was  observed,  that  those  who  were  in  their 
last  ^gony  were  shown  the  image  of  Christ  crucified,  and  ad- 
monished of  the  death  and  blood  of  Christ.  Then,  by  a  divine 
miracle,  there  remained  in  the  church,  the  Psalter,  the  Lord's 
Prayer,  the  Creed,  the  Ten  Commandments.  Likewise  many 
pious  and  excellent  hymns,  as  well  Latin  as  German,  such  as, 
'  Veni  Sancte  Spiritus,'  and  '  Emitte  lucis  tuae  radium,'  &c. 
These   hymns  were   left  to    posterity  by  truly  spiritual   and 

c  This  appears  by  their  continual  appeals  to  a  general  council,  and  their 
protests  that  they  did  not  separate  from  the  Roman^church.  See  the  next 
chapter,  sect.  i. 

d  Lutheri  Theses,  1522,  Oper.  torn.  i.  p.  377,  &c. ;  De  Abrog.  Missae 
Priv.  torn.  ii.  p.  258,  259;  De  VotisMon.  ibid.  271.  278. 

e  Apolog.  Conf.  August.  De  vot.  Mon.  21. 

^  Ut  supra.  I 


2G2  WESTERN  CHURCHES  CONTINUED   [p.  I.  CH.  xi. 

Christian  men,  though  oppressed  by  tyranny.     Wherever  were 
these  truly  sacred  rehcs,  the  rehcs  of  holy  men,  there  was  and 
is  the  true,  holy  church  of  Christ,  and  therein  remained  the 
saints  of  Christ ;  for   all  these  are  ordinances  and  fruits  of 
Christ,  except  the  forcible  removal  of  one  species  from  Chris- 
tians.    In  this  church  of  Christ  therefore  the  Spirit  of  Christ 
was    certainly    present,   and  preserved    true   knowledge  and 
true  faith  in  his  elect.     These  relics  indeed  were  but  small, 
and  the  true  church  lay  miserably  injured  and  oppressed  by  the 
tyranny  and  infinite  deceptions  of  the  false  church  ....  The 
miserable,  afflicted,  and  oppressed  church  was  to  he  'pardoned 
by  God,  because  one  species  of  the  sacrament  was  taken  away 
from  her,  unwilling  and  captive,  and  denied  to  her.     If  even 
the  elect  and  saints  lived  all  their  lives  in  infirmity  and  error, 
yet  in  death  He  liberated  them  as  it  were  from  the  furnace  of 
Babylon,  such  as  St.  Bernard,  Gregory,  Bonaventure."^ 

How  charitable,  and  at  the  same  time  how  rational  are  these 
sentiments.  But  such  notions  are  not  limited  to  Luther,  they 
are  those  of  the  church  of  England,  and  of  all  her  most  emi- 
nent divines.  The  several  formularies  of  doctrine  published  by 
authority  in  the  reign  of  Henry  VITL,  acknowledged  the 
churches  of  the  Roman  Obedience  to  be  parts  of  the  catholic 
church.^  The  canons  of  1603  speak  of  the  othern  Western 
unreformed  churches  in  such  terras,  as  evidently  imply  a  re- 
cognition of  them  as  still  Christian,  though  in  some  respects 
fallen  from  their  ancient  integrity  or  perfection.  "  It  was  so 
far  from  the  purpose  of  the  church  of  England  to  forsake  and 

E  Lutherus,  de  Missa  Privata,  torn.  vii.  p.  236,  237. 

b  "The  Institution  of  a  Christian  Man,"  approved  by  twenty-one 
bishops  in  1537,  acknowledges  the  churches  of  Rome,  France,  Spain,  &c. 
to  be  members  of  the  catholic  church.  (Formularies  of  Faith,  Oxford  ed. 
p.  55.)  The  "  Necessary  Doctrine,"  approved  by  the  bishops  in  1543, 
includes  in  the  catholic  church  the  particular  churches  of  England,  Spain, 
Italy,  Poland,  Portugal,  and  Rome.  (Ibid.  p.  247.)  See  also  Part  II. 
Chap.  II. 


SECT.  I.]  CHRISTIAN  UP  TO  THE  REFORMATION.  263 

reject  the  churches  of  Italy,  France,  Spain,  Germany,  or  any 
other  such   like  churches,  in  all  things  which  they  held  and 
practised  ;  that,  as  the  Apology  of  the  church  of  England  con- 
fesseth,  it  doth  with  reverence  retain  those  ceremonies,  which 
do  neither  endamage  the  church  of  God,  nor  offend  the  minds 
of  sober  men  ;  and  only  departed  from  them  in  those  particu- 
lar points  wherein  they  were  fallen  both  from  themselves  in  their 
ancient   integrity,  and  from  the  apostolical   churches  which 
were  their  first  founders."'     In  strict  accordance  with  these 
principles,  it  is  maintained  by  our  theologians,  that  the  churches 
of  the  West  continually  remained  a  portion  of  Christ's  catholic 
church,  up  to  the  period  of  the  Reformation.     Dr.  Field  says  : 
"  Touching  the   Latin  church  likewise,  we  are  of  the  same 
opinion,  that  it  continued  still  a  part  of  the  catholic  church,  not- 
withstanding the   manifold  abuses  and  superstitions  which  in 
time  crept  into  it,  and  the  dangerous  and  damnable  false  doc- 
trine,  that  some  taught  and   defended    in  the  midst  of   it."'' 
Bishop  Hall  teaches  the  same  :  "  The  Latin  or  Western  church, 
subject  to  the  Roman  t3rranny,  was  a  true  church,  in  which  a 
saving  profession. of  the  truth  of  Christ  was   found."^     Arch- 
bishop Ussher,  in  reply  to  the  question,  "  Where  was  your 
church  before  Luther  ?"  says  :    "  Our  church  was  even  there 
where  now  it  is.     In  all  places  of  the  world  where  the  ancient 
foundations  were  retained,   and  those    common  principles  of 
faith,  upon  the  profession  whereof  men  have  ever  been  wont  to 
be  admitted  by  baptism  into  the  church  of  Christ ;  there  we 
doubt  not  but  our  Lord  had  his  subjects,  and  we  our  fellow- 
servants.     For  we  bring  in  no  new  faith,  nor  no  new  church.'''' 
In  reply  to  the  question,  "  What  we  may  judge  of  our  forefa- 
thers who  lived  in  the  communion  of  the  church  of  Rome  ?" 
he  says  :  "I  answer  that  we  have  no  reason  to  think  otherwise, 
but  that  they  lived  and  died  under  the   mercy  of  God.     For 
we  must  distinguish  the  papacy  from  the  church  wherein  it  is, 


'  Canon  xxx.  ''  Field,  Of  the  Church,  book  iii.  ch.  6. 

'  Hall,  Of  the  Old  Religion,  p.  202.    . 


264  WESTERN   CHURCHES.  [p.  I.  CH.  XI. 

as  the  apostle  doth  antichrist  from  the  temple  of  God  wherein 
he  sitteth."'"  He  shows  elsewhere,  that  the  ordinary  instruc- 
tion appointed  to  be  given  in  those  ages  to  men  on  their  death- 
beds was,  that  they  should  "  put  their  whole  trust  in  the  death 
of  Christ:"  " trust  in  no  other  thing,  confide  themselves  en- 
tirely to  his  death,  cover  themselves  with  it ;"  "  place  the  death 
of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  between  themselves  and  God's  judg- 
ment ;"  "  offer  the  merit  of  his  most  worthy  passion  instead  of 
the  merit  which  they  had  not  themselves."''  Among  other 
theologians  who  maintained  the  Christianity  of  the  Western 
churches  before  the  Reformation,  were  Hooker,  Bramhall, 
Laud,  Chillingworth,  Hammond,  &c.  Dr.  Field  cites  Calvin, 
Bucer,  Melancthon,  Beza,  Philip  Mornay,  as  all  acknowledging, 
in  a  certain  sense,  that  the  Western  churches  before  the  Refor- 
mation were  really  churches  of  Christ,  though  oppressed  by  the 
papacy,  and  by  several  superstitions."  Calvin,  however,  con- 
tradicts himself  on  this  matter  in  his  Institutions. p 


m  Sermon  before  the  King,  on  Eph.  iv.  13. 

a  Usser.  de  Christian.  Eccl.  Suceessione  et  Statu,  c.  7.  sect.  21,  22. 

o  Of  the  Church,  Appendix,  part  iii.  p.  880. 

p  He  says,  (Lib.  iv.  c  2.  sect.  1,  2.)  "  Si  vera  Ecclesia  columna  est  ac 
firmamentum  veritatis,  certum  est  non  esse  ecclesiam^  ubi  regnum  occupa- 
vit  niendacium  et  falsitas.  In  eum  modum  quum  res  habeat  sub  Papismo, 
intelligere  licet  quid  ecclesicz  illic  supersit,''''  &c.  Certainly  nothing  can  be 
clearer.  But  at  the  end  of  the  chapter  he  says  :  "  Antichistum  in  templo 
Dei  sessurum  prfedixerunt  Daniel  et  Paulus  ;  illius  scelerati  et  abominandi 
re^ni  ducem  et  antesignanum  apud  nos  facimus  Romanum  Pontificem. 
Quod  sedes  ejus  in  templo  Dei  collocatur,  ita  innuitur,  tale  fore  ejus  regnum 
quod  nee  Christi  nee  ecclesiae  nomen  aboleat.  Hinc  igitur  patet  nos  vii- 
nime  negare,  quin  sub  ejus  quoque  tyrannide  EcclesicB  maneant.''''  So 
manifest  a  variation  proves,  that  Calvin  had  not  thoroughly  investigated 
this  part  of  the  subject.  [This  appears,  too,  from  his  very  discrepant  as- 
sertions concerning  the  corrupt  Jewish  church,  in  Lib.  iv.  c.  1.  sect.  18, 
and  in  c.  2.  sect.  10.  His  position  concerning  the  Roman  churches  is — 
"  Quum  ecclesiae  titulum  non  simpliciter  volumus  concedere  Papistis,  non 
ideo  ecdesias  apud  eos  esse  inticiamur.''''  (c.  2.  sect.  12.) — and  that  they  are 
not  to  be  held  "  pro  Ecclesii  in  quarum  plena  conmumione  perstandum 
sit  homini  Christiano."  (sect.  10.)  Moderate  enough,  if  it  were  only  clear  !] 


SECT.  II.]  ROMAN    CHURCHES.  265 


SECTION  II. 

WHETHER  THE  CHURCHES  OF  THE  ROMAN  OBEDIENCE  CONTINUED 
TO  BE  CHURCHES  OF  CHRIST  AFTER  THE  REFORMATION. 

There  are  different  opinions  as  to  the  claim  of  the  Roman 
to  the  title  of  a  true  chmxh  since  the  Reformation  ;  and  Jewel, 
Field,  and  others  who  deny  it,  are  not  without  some  probability 
on  their  side.  We  will  suppose  that  in  some  one  or  more 
points  of  faith,  the  Roman  church  is  actually  in  error.  This 
is,  at  least,  very  possible  ;  and  to  those  theologians  of  whom  I 
speak  it  appeared  perfectly  certain,  from  an  actual  examination 
of  Scripture  and  catholic  tradition.  We  will  then  suppose  this 
to  be  the  case,  and  if  so,  then  there  is  a  strong  apparent  proba- 
bility that  the  Roman  Obedience  is  in  heresy,  because  it  seems 
that  those  errors  against  faith  were  defended  with  the  greatest 
pertinacity,  after  abundant  discussion  and  information ;  and  that 
Romanists  proceeded  so  far  as  to  excommunicate,  and  most 
cruelly  persecute  those  who  defended  the  truth.  Under  these 
circumstances  it  cannot  be  wondered  at,  that,  in  the  opinion  of 
many  persons,  the  churches  of  the  Roman  obedience  were 
heretical  and  apostate  :  nor  can  we  blame  those  who  judged 
from  such  circumstances.  There  was  not  even  any  intolerable 
inconvenience  in  the  supposition,  because  the  true  church  would 
still  have  subsisted  in  the  East  and  West,  though  in  some  parts 
of  it,  in  a  shattered  and  disorganized  state. 

But  to  me  it  appears  infinitely  safer  and  more  charitable,  to 
prefer  the  opinion  of  the  majority  of  theologians,  who  consider 
the  Roman  churches,  though  in  several  respects  faulty  and 
corrupted  in  doctrine  and  discipline,  yet  still  to  continue  a  por- 
tion of  the  catholic  church  of  Christ.  Hooker  reckons  among 
the  errors  of  the  Presbyterian  or  Puritan  schismatics  in  his  time, 
their  "  suffering  indignation  at  the  faults  of  the  churcli  of  Rome, 
to  blind  and  withhold  their  judgments  from  seeing  that,  which 
withal  they  should  acknowledge,  concerning  so  much  neverthe- 
voL.  I. — 34 


266  KOMAN  CHURCHES  [p.  I    CH.  XI. 

less  still  due  to  the  same  church,  as  to  be  held  and  reputed  a 
part  of  the  house  of  God,  a  limb  of  the  visible  church  of 
Christ."i  And  he  elsewhere  says,  that  "  touching  those  main 
parts  of  Christian  truth  wherein  they  constantly  still  persist, 
we  gladly  acknowledge  them  to  be  of  the  family  of  Jesus 
Christ ;"  and  that :  "  As  there  are  which  make  the  church  of 
Rome  utterly  no  church  at  all,  by  reason  of  so  many,  so  griev- 
ous errors  in  her  doctrines  ;  so  we  have  them  amongst  us,  who 
under  pretence  of  imagined  corruptions  in  our  discipline,  do 
give  even  as  hard  a  judgment  of  the  church  of  England  itself."^ 

Archbishop  Laud,  in  his  controversy  with  the  Jesuit,  says  : 
"  I  granted  the  Roman  church  to  be  a  true  church  ;  for  so 
much  very  learned  Protestants  have  acknovt^ledged  before  me  ; 
and  the  truth  cannot  deny  it."  He  refers  for  proofs  to  Hooker, 
Junius,  Reynold,  and  even  the  Separatist  Fr.  Johnson.^  Dr. 
Hammond  says  :  "  As  we  exclude  no  Christian  from  our  com- 
munion that  will  either  filially  or  fraternally  embrace  it  with 
us,  being  ready  to  admit  any  to  our  assemblies,  that  acknow- 
ledge the  foundation  laid  by  Christ  and  his  apostles ;  so  we 
as  earnestly  desire  to  be  admitted  to  the  like  freedom  of 
external  communion  with  all  the  members  of  all  other  Christian 
churches  .  .  .  and  would  most  willingly,  by  the  use  of  the 
ancient  method  of  liiet'ce  communicatoricB,  maintain  this  com- 
munion with  those  with  whom  we  cannot  corporally  assemble, 
and  particularly  with  those  which  live  in  obedience  to  the  church 
of  Rome."'  Bramhall,  Andrewes,  Chillingworth,  Tillotson, 
Burnet,  &c.  might  also  be  cited  in  acknowledgment  that  the 
Roman  is  still  a  portion  of  the  catholic  church,  though  infected 
with  several  errors. 

This  appears  infinitely  the  more  probable  opinion,  and  the 
objection,  which  was  stated  at  the  beginning,  and  which  led  to 
the  contrary  conclusion,  may  be  answered  without  difficulty. 
That  the   Romanists  were  not  obstinately  pertinacious,   and 

■     4  Works,  ii.  478.  Edit.  Keble.  '  Works,  i.  438. 

»  Conference,  s.  20.  nu.  3.  »  Of  Schism,  ch.  ix.  s.  3. 


SECT.  II.]         CHRISTIAN  AFTER  THE  REFORMATION.  267 

heretical,  generally,  in  upholding  the  errors  of  the  Council  of 
Trent,  I  argue  thus.  First,  they  were  deeply  impressed  with 
an  opinion,  of  long  standing  in  the  Western  church,  that  the 
Roman  pontiff  was  the  divinely  appointed  centre  of  unity,  and 
that  every  one  who  did  not  communicate  with  him  was  cut  off 
from  the  church.  This  opinion  was  of  such  antiquity,  and 
supported  by  such  forgeries,  frauds,  and  usurpations,  that  it 
was  difficult  to  perceive  its  error.^  From  this  doctrine  it  fol- 
lowed, that  the  Western  was  the  whole  catholic  church  of 
Christ,  and  that  whatever  Western  councils  had  decreed,  was 
obediently  to  be  received  by  Christians.  Now  some  doctrines 
and  practices  rejected  by  the  Reformation  had  apparently  been 
so  authorized,  therefore  the  Romanists  did  not  without  strong 
reasons  oppose  the  truth.  Secondly,  the  doctrines,  and  prac- 
tices of  some  of  the  reformed  were  apparently  innovations  in 
some  cases,  as  being  either  not  commonly  received  in  the 
church  for  some  time  before,  or  as  being  in  fact  and  truth  inno- 
vations on  very  ancient  customs  which  had  been  abused,  and 
become  inexpedient  and  prejudicial  to  piety.  And  many 
churches  were  afraid  of  innovations  and  changes,  and  deemed 


"  So  deeply-rooted  was  this  prejudice  long  afterwards,  even  in  the  most 
enlightened  part  of  the  Roman  church,  that  the  learned  Du  Pin,  doctor 
of  the  Sorbonne,  was  compelled  to  abstain  from  publishing  to  the  world 
his  belief  that  non-communion  with  the  Roman  see  was  no  proof  of  schism. 
This  curious  fact  was  discovered  by  Jurieu,  who  in  his  work,  De  I'Unite 
de  PEglise,  p.  211,  has  printed  the  suppressed  passages  of  Du  Pin's  trea- 
tise De  Antiqua  Eccl.  Disciplina,  p.  256,  where  he  spoke  thus  :  "  When 
churches  or  bishops  break  mutual  peace,  there  may  be  a  doubt  which  is  in 
schism,  and  which  ought  to  be  held  separated  from  the  communion  of  the 
whole  church.  Some  persons  believe  they  can  easily  reply  to  this  difficulty 
by  saying,  that  those  should  be  reputed  schismatic  and  excommunicated, 
who  were  separated  from  the  communion  of  the  Roman  church  and  bishop. 
As  for  me,  while  I  doubt  not  that  the  authority  of  the  bishop  of  Rome,  who 
is  the  prunate  of  the  church,  and  therefore  the  centre  of  unity,  has  always 
been  very  great ;  I  am  nevertheless  obliged  to  abandon  the  opinion  of  those 
who  say,  that  all  those  who  are  separated  from  the  Roman  see,  have 
always  been  reputed  schismatics,  and  ought  now  to  be  considered  such." 


268  ROMAN  CHURCHES  [p.  I.  CH.  XI, 

it  most  prudent  to  remain  as  they  were.  Thirdly,  the  reformed 
were  not  exempt  from  faults  and  errors  themselves,  in  doctrine 
as  well  as  discipline  ;  and  their  numerous  divisions  naturally 
excited  a  prejudice  against  their  system.  The  language  of 
■  some  leaders  of  the  Reformation  was  too  violent  and  harsh  in 
relation  to  the  Roman  church,  and  kept  alive  feelings  of  irrita- 
tion and  estrangement :  while  the  principles  of  unbounded 
liberty  and  license  of  private  opinion,  which  at  length  appeared 
amongst  the  Protestants,  raised  an  additional  obstacle  to  the 
progress  of  truth,  which  it  threatened  ultimately  to  subvert. 
Fourthly,  the  reformed  generally  were  in  a  difficult  and  unfa- 
vourable condition,  from  being  apparently  in  opposition  to  the 
existing  bishops  and  pastors  of  the  church  ;  and  it  was  natural, 
and  not  blameable,  that  the  people  should  prefer  to  adhere  to 
their  pastors,  and  be  apprehensive  of  being  cut  off  from  their 
communion.  Fifth,  the  Synod  of  Trent,  though  not,  according 
to  the  true  principles  of  the  catholic  church,  invested  with  any 
authority  strictly  binding  on  the  conscience,  had  yet,  according 
to  the  opinions  universally  prevalent  amongst  Romanists  at 
that  time,  a  good  title  to  be  considered  equal  in  authority  to 
the  ancient  CECumenical  councils  ;  and  therefore,  though  they 
were  mistaken  in  point  of  fact,"*'  they  cannot  fairly  be  accused 
of  heresy  in  admitting  its  decrees,  for  they  judged,  on  reasons 
of  no  inconsiderable  strength,  that  it  was  irrefragable  and  in- 
fallible. 

It  appears  to  me,  that  these  considerations  should  exculpate 
the  members  of  tha  Roman  church  generally,  from  such  per- 
tinacious opposition  to  the  evident  truth,  as  would  properly 
constitute  heresy.  It  is  true  that  their  church  is  in  error  on 
several  points,  but  it  seems  that  they  were  prevented  by  so 
many  excusable  circumstances  from  seeing  the  right  way,  that 
we  ought  not  to  judge  too  harshly,  and  exclude  from  the  church 
of  Christ  so  vast  a  multitude  of  believers,  so  many  nations,  and 
such  a  crowd  of  ancient  churches. 


"See  Part  IV.  where  the  authority  of  the  Synod  of  Trent  is  investigated. 


SECT.  II.]  ALWAYS  CONTINUED  CHRISTIAN.  269 

That  these  churches  should  even  now  be  regarded  as  churches 
of  Christ,  I  argue  for  the  following  reasons.  First,  they  have 
been  always  visible  from  the  most  remote  antiquity,  having 
existed  in  perpetual  Succession  in  the  countries  where  they  are 
found,  and  having  never  separated  from  any  older  Christian 
churches  in  those  countries.  Secondly,  it  is  undeniable  that 
these  churches  preserve  unity  of  communion  among  themselves, 
both  in  principle  and  practice.  They  urge  its  necessity  as  a 
matter  of  religious  duty,  and  inflict  punishment  on  those  who 
offend  against  unity.  There  is  no  evidence  that  they  have 
ever  been  excommunicated  by  the  majority  of  the  catholic 
church,  or  that  they  have  voluntarily  separated  from  it ;  and 
if  they  have  unjustly  expelled  some  from  their  communion,  it 
can  be  easily  shown,  that  it  was  under  the  influence  of  pre- 
conceived opinions,  or  from  ignorance.  Thirdly,  there  cannot 
be  a  doubt  of  their  zeal  to  maintain  the  unity  of  Christian 
truth  ;  they  acknowledge  the  authority  of  the  universal  church 
in  faith,  receive  the  apostolical  tradition  in  principle,  and  endea- 
vour in  practice  to  sustain  to  the  best  of  their  power  the  catho- 
lic faith.  Nor  is  there  evidence  that  any  of  their  doctrines  have 
been  ever  formally  and  clearly  condemned  by  the  catholic 
church.  No  one  pretends  that  they  have  been  so  ;  and  the  truth 
is,  that  many  of  their  theologians  so  explain  and  teach  the  doc- 
trines in  dispute,  that  the  difl'erence,  as  represented  by  them,  is, 
in  most  points,  not  considerable."^  It  is  true  that  they  esteem 
the  synod  of  Trent  oecumenical,  and  are  thus  tied  in  fact  to  cer- 
tain errors,  notwithstanding  all  their  explanations  ;  but  I  have 
already  observed  that  they  are  excusable  in  this.  Fourthly, 
they  inculcate  the  duty  of  holiness,  and  endeavour,  by  a  certain 
sort  of  discipline,  and  by  religious  exercises,  to  promote  it,  and 
it  is  certain  that  many  men  of  genuine  piety  and  excellence 
have  adorned  their  communion.     Fifthly,  they  are   extended 


w  There  is  scarcely  a  point  in  debate  between  us,  in  which  our  doctrine 
might  not  be  proved  simply  from  Romish  theologians.  I  have  observed  a 
thousand  proofs  of  this. 


270  .  ROMAN  CHURCHES  [p.  I.  CH.  XI. 

over  many  countries,  and  with  the  addition  of  the  Eastern  and 
British  churches,  have  all  the  catholicity  which  the  true  church 
can  require.  Sixthly,  they  possess  a  ministry  descended  by 
regular  succession  from  the  apostles.  I  conclude  from  this, 
that  they  are  really  to  be  considered  churches  of  Christ. 

SECTION  III. 

WHETHER    THESE    CHURCHES   CONSTITUTE    EXCLUSIVELY    THE 
CATHOLIC    CHURCH    OF   CHRIST. 

The  exclusive  claim  which  Romanists  make  for  their  branch 
of  the  church,  asserting  that  it  constitutes  the  whole  catholic 
church,  has  been  adduced  as  affording  in  itself  a  presumption 
of  its  correctness.  But  it  is  forgotten  that  the  Donatists  and 
the  Luciferians  of  old,  made  the  very  same  claim  for  their 
churches,  and  yet  no  one  will  pretend  that  it  afforded  any  pre- 
sumption in  their  favour.  The  proofs  by  which  Romish  theo- 
logians attempt  to  sustain  their  position,  are  classed  under  the 
four  heads  of  unity,  sanctity,  catholicity,  and  apostolicity.  After 
what  has  been  already  said  of  .the  Oriental  and  the  British 
churches,  it  will  be  seen  in  a  moment,  that  most  of  these  argu- 
ments are  merely  baseless  assertions.  ^  ■  ■ 

UNITY. 

It  is  asserted  that  the  Roman  church  alone  has  not  separat- 
ed herself  from  any  more  ancient  church.  She  alone  has 
efficacious  principles  calculated  to  preserve  unity,  for  her  prin- 
ciples arc  these — that  the  faith  of  all  Christians  ought  always 
to  be  the  same  ;  that  by  the  force  of  Christ's  promises  there 
ought  always  to  be  a  tribunal  for  the  decision  of  controversies 
in  the  church ;  and  that  the  rewards  of  eternal  life  are  only  to 
be  obtained  in  the  church.  Accordingly,  the  Roman  church 
alone  has  always  been  inflexible  in  matters  of  faith,  and  never 
connived  at  schism  or  heresy.  Her  children  always  obey  the 
judgments  made  by  her  infallible  authority  in  matters  of  faith. 
Among  them   no  disputes  exist  except  on  matters    of  mere 


SECT.  TII.J         NOT  SUPERIOR   TO    OTHER    CHURCHES.  271 

opinion,  not  decided  by  the  church.  In  fine,  she  alone  possesses 
a  most  efficacious  principle  of  unity,  in  maintaining  the  Roman 
pontiff  to  be  by  divine  appointment  head  of  the  church  and  the 
centre  of  unity. ^ 

Answer.  I  deny  that  the  Roman  church  alone  has  not  sepa- 
rated from  any  more  ancient  church  ;  or  that  she  alone  has  the 
efficacious  principles  of  unity  spoken  of.  These  are  attributes 
equally  of  the  Oriental  and  British  churches,  as  I  have  shov^rn. 
They  do  not  indeed  affirm,  that  a  tribunal  for  the  decision  of 
controversies  by  irrefragable  authority  must  always  be  in  a  state 
of  organization,  and  ready  to  issue  its  decrees  ;  because  most 
controversies  can  be  terminated  without  any  such  authority. 
But  they  admit  that  such  a  tribunal  has  been  constituted  before 
now,  and  will  be  again,  whenever  the  Divine  Head  of  the 
church  shall  judge  it  necessary  to  the  preservation  of  his  true 
faith.  As  to  the  peculiar  inflexibility  of  the  Roman  Church  in 
matters  of  faith,  it  would  be  impossible  to  prove  that  in  this 
respect  she  stands  above  the  rest  of  the  church  ;  and  if  she 
does  not  connive  at  schism  and  heresy,  it  is  at  least  certain  that 
there  are  abundance  of  both  in  her  communion.  The  existence 
of  Jansenism  in  all  parts  of  the  Roman  communion  up  to  the 
present  day,  although  it  was  condemned  as  a  heresy  two  hun- 
dred years  ago  •/  the  existence  of  infidelity  and  indiffer- 
ence which  threaten  to  swallow  up  the  faith  of  its  members  ;^ 
are  sufficient  proofs  that  unity  of  faith  is,  in  a  lamentably  small 
degree,  a  characteristic  of  the  Roman  church,  and  that  her 
own  children  do  not  acknowledge  her  infallibility  nor  her  au- 
thority. The  introduction  of  schismatics  to  her  communion  in 
the  persons  of  the  constitutional  bishops,  proves  that  there  is 
no  perfect  unity  of  discipline  ;'^  and  the  very  papal  authori- 
ty, which  is  represented  as  so  efficacious  a  principle  of  unity, 

^  See  Bouvicr,  Delahogue,  Milncr,  Trevern,  Tournely,  Bailly,  &c. 

y  See  Appendix  I.  where  the  existence  and  ravages  of  Jansenism  in  the 
Roman  churches  to  the  present  day,  are  proved  from  the  confessions  of 
Romanists. 

See  Appendix  11.  a  See  Appendix  III. 


272  THE    ROMAN    CHURCHES.  [P.  I.  CH.  XI. 

is  systematically  and  violently  assailed  by  members  of  the 
Roman  church.''  "  This  our  Roman  See  of  the  most  blessed 
Peter,  in  which  Christ  laid  the  foundation  of  his  church,"  says 
Gregory  XVI.  "  is  most  grievously  assailed  ;  and  the  bonds  of 
unity  are  daily  more  and  more  weakened  and  broken."  He 
accordingly  admonishes  the  bishops  thus  :  "  Therefore,  in  order 
to  repress  the  audacity  of  those,  who  either  dare  to  infringe 
the  rights  of  this  holy  see,  or  to  destroy  the  union  of  the  church- 
es with  her,  a  union  from  which  alone  they  derive  support  and 
existence,  inculcate  an  exceeding  zeal  and  veneration  for  her," 
&c.  This  last  pretended  principle  of  unity  is  well  known  to 
have  divided  the  Eastern  from  the  Western  churches  ;  and  it 
continues  to  form  the  grand  impediment  to  their  reunion,  as  it 
does  to  the  reunion  of  the  British  and  Roman  churches.  There- 
fore it  is  a  principle  of  division  rather  than  of  union. 

SANCTITY. 

Peculiar  and  exclusive  sanctity  is  claimed  for  the  Roman 
church  on  the  following  grounds.  (1.)  As  she  alone  has  not 
separated  from  a  more  ancient  church,  she  is  the  very  same 
which  was  founded  by  the  apostles,  and  therefore  her  founders 
alone  were  holy.  (2.)  She  alone  invites  her  children  to  holi- 
ness, and  affords  efficacious  means  of  sanctification  in  her  sa- 
craments, &c.  (3)  All  the  mart)rrs  of  Christ,  all  the  doctors, 
all  the  saints  of  every  age,  sex,  and  condition  belong  to  her  only. 
(4.)  From  her  alone  proceeded  all  the  missionaries  and  apos- 
tles of  various  nations.  (5.)  In  her  alone,  even  to  the  latest 
times,  are  seen  missionaries,  and  saints  whose  miracles  are 
admitted  by  all.  (6.)  The  monastic  institute  is  found  in  her 
only.'^ 

Answer.  I  deny  the  truth  of  every  one  of  these  propositions. 
(1.)  The  Eastern  and  British  churches  never  separated  from 

^  Appendix  I.  and  IV. 

e  See  the  works  of  Tournely,  Bailly,  Delahogue,  Bouvier,  Collet,  Mil- 
ner,  &c.  &c. 


\ 
SECT.  III.]  NOT  SUPERIOR  TO  OTHER  CHURCHES.  273 

any  older  churches.  (2.)  They  equally  maintain  the  necessity 
of  holiness,  and  administer  all  the  means  of  grace  of  divine 
institution.  As  to  the  sanctity  of  doctrine  in  the  Roman  church, 
it  may  be  observed,  without  denying  that  good  works  are  re- 
quired in  theory  by  their  church,  that  it  is  much  to  be  feared 
holiness  is  but  little  required  or  followed  in  practice  among 
them.  It  is  certain  that  there  are  many  doctrines  and  practices 
common  in  their  communion,  which  tend  to  injure  Christian 
sanctity  and  morality,  as  our  theologians  have  proved  in  the 
case  of  purgatory,  indulgences,  repentance  at  the  point  of 
death,  attrition,  auricular  confession,  expiatory  masses,  the 
distinction  of  mortal  and  venial  sins,  the  doctrine  of  probability, 
opus  operatum,  equivocation,  mental  reservation,  vain  repeti- 
tions, idolat7-ous  worship  of  saints  and  images,'^  &c.  We 
know  that  some  of  their  members  reject  most  of  what  is  bad 
in  these  things,  but  they  are  held  and  practised  without  censure 
by  others,  and  the  Roman  churches  have  never  yet  taken  any 
eft'ectual  steps  to  correct  the  abuses  prevalent  among  them. 
And  when  we  come  to  view  the  lives  of  Romanists,  we  see  but 
too  little  sanctity.  Even  at  the  beginning  of  last  century  things 
had  proceeded  to  such  a  length,  that  the  learned  Van  Espen, 
professor  of  canon  law  in  the  university  of  Louvain,  declared, 
that  "  the  discipline  of  the  church  is  so  collapsed,  that 
scarcely  a  vestige  remains  :  and  all  sorts  of  vices  have  so 
prevailed  everywhere,  and  are  so  abundant,  that  they  are  re- 
garded as  nothing;  and  the  people  drink  in  iniquity  like 
water."*^     This  deplorable  state  of  immorality  has  since  that 


d  Bp.  Taylor's  Dissuasive  from  Popery,  chapters  iu  and  iii.  Oxford 
edit,  by  Cardwell.  The  grossly  immoral  tendency  of  Dens'  Theology, 
which  has  been  so  well  exposed  of  late,  is  rivalled  or  surpassed  by  that  of 
the  "Theologia  moralis''''  of  Ligorio,  bishop  of  S.  Agatha,  who  was  not 
long  ago  canonized  as  a  saint  by  one  of  the  Roman  pontiffs.  The  details 
of  this  work  are  truly  revolting.  The  writers  on  moral  theology  in  the 
Roman  churches  seem  to  forget  the  apostolic  words  :  "  Quae  enim  m  oc- 
eulto  fiunt  ab  ipsis,  turpe  est  et  dicere.'^ — Eph.  v. 

"  Van  Espen,  Jus  Canonicum,  pars  i.  tit.  xx.  d.  i.  s.  11. 
VOL.  I. — 35 


274  ROMAN  CHURCHES  [p,  I,  CH.  XI. 

time  been  rendered  still  worse.  Without  disputing  that  there 
are  many  good  men  among  them,  it  may  be  asserted  as  a  mat- 
ter of  public  notoriety,  that  the  state  of  morals  in  all  orders  of 
society,  in  the  Roman  churches  of  Italy,  Spain,  Portugal,  and 
France,  is  immeasurably  degraded  and  corrupt ;  and  what  is 
worse,  that  the  very  persons  whose  lives  are  spent  in  the  most 
infamous  vices,  are  assiduous  in  their  attendance  on  all  the  offi- 
ces of  the  church  ;  that  they  are  constant  at  confession,  com- 
municate at  Easter,  and  then  revert  to  their  usual  habits,  with- 
out any  sense  of  compunction  for  the  profanations  of  which  they 
have  been  guilty.  I'he  banditti  of  the  Abruzzi  are  remarkable 
for  attention  to  their  devotions.  The  harlots  and  assassins  of 
Spain  confess,  communicate,  and  return  to  their  sins.  In  Ire- 
land it  has  been  observed,  that  murderers  have  frequently  been 
found  assiduous  in  all  the  services  of  their  religion.  Every- 
where all  the  external  signs  of  an  ardent  devotion,  even  to  tears, 
are  found  united  with  a  systematic  moral  depravity.  I  ask, 
can  that  be  a  sound  or  wholesome  system  which  teaches  men 
to  look  with  indifference  on  sin  ;  and  must  there  not  be  some- 
thing wrong  in  a  mode  of  moral  instruction  which  can  lead  to 
such  detestable  profanations  ?  It  is  a  melancholy  but  a  certain 
truth,  that  in  no  part  of  the  world  do  the  crimes  of  assassination, 
robbery,  murder,  adultery,  suicide,  rebellion,  so  fearfully  abound, 
as  in  those  countries  where  the  Roman  church  holds  sway. 
Such  is  the  actual  sanctity  of  this  church  in  too  many  of  her 
members  ;  and  it  certainly  places  her  beneath  both  the  Oriental 
and  the  British  churches.  (3.)  It  is  childish  to  say  that  all  the 
saints,  martyrs,  doctors,  &c.  belong  only  to  the  Roman  church. 
We  claim  them  absolutely  as  ours,  and  will  not  consent  to  lose 
one  of  them.  They  belong  to  every  part  of  the  catholic  church. 
(4.)  Is  equally  absurd,  as  I  have  already  shown  the  pious  and 
successful  missionary  labours  of  the  Eastern  and  British 
churches.  (5.)  The  miracles  of  Romish  saints  are  admitted 
only  by  Romanists  generally.  Certain  it  is,  by  their  own  ad- 
mission, that  a  vast  quantity  of  so-called  miracles  among  them 


•SECT.  III.]         NOT  SUPERIOR  TO  OTHER  CHURCHES.  275 

have  been  either  fictitious  or  not  properly  miraculous. ^  Mira- 
cles have  been  pretended  to  by  the  Jansenists  from  the  middle 
of  the  seventeenth  century,^  and  about  the  year  1731  they 
claimed  two  hundred  well-attested  miracles  in  their  favour,  per- 
formed all  about  the  same  time  at  the  tomb  of  the  Abbe  Paris.^ 
Soanen,  Barchman,  Quesnel,  Rousse,  Levier,  Desangins,  Tour- 
nus,  and  many  other  Jansenists,  performed  miracles^  (as  they 
called  them),  v^^hich  their  party  boast  of  to  the  present  day.* 


''  No  authority  on  this  subject  can  be  superior  to  that  of  the  late  Dr- 
Milner.  He  said :  "  I  admit  that  a  vast  number  of  incredible  and  false 
miracles,  as  well  as  other  fables,  have  been  forged  by  some,  and  believed 
by  other  catholics  in  every  age  of  the  church,  including  that  of  the  apos- 
tles. I  agree  with  you  in  rejecting  the  'Legenda  aurea'  of  Jacobus  de 
Voragine,  the  '  Speculum '  of  Vincentius  Belluacensis,  the  '  Saints' 
Lives '  of  the  Patrician  Metaphrastes,  and  scores  of  similar  Legends, 
stuffed,  as  they  are,  with  miracles  of  every  description." — End  of  Contro- 
versy, letter  xxiv.  The  fact  is,  that  Romish  miracles  are  almost  prover- 
bially impostures  ;  and  their  very  mention  provokes  a  smile  of  incredulity. 
The  falsehood  of  many  of  these  tales  was  also  acknowledged  by  Vives, 
Melchior  Canus,  Lindanus,  &c. 

g  Mosheim,  Eccl.  Hist.  vol.  v.  p.  211.  They  claimed  miracles  in  their 
favour  in  16.56,  1661,  and  1664. 

i»  Memoires  Eccles.  xviii.  siecle,  torn.  ii.  p.  83. 

■  Ibid.  p.  89.  93.  The  Jansenists  again  pretended  to  miracles  in  1761 
and  1785,  of  which  the  four  holy  sisters  and  Bonjour,  cure  of  Fareins,  near 
Trevoux,  were  the  performers.  Mem.  Eccl.  xviii.  siecle  ii.  p.  399.  The 
Pere  Lambert,  a  Dominican,  in  1806,  published  "  V Exposition  des  predic- 
tions,^'' &c.  in  which  he  speaks  of  these  Jansenistic  miracles  as  "  a  heav- 
enly sign  which  God  had  raised  in  the  church  for  66  years,"  &c. — lb.  402. 
See  also  Mosheim,  vol.  v.  p.  211.  The  "venerable"  Labre,  a  French 
mendicant,  who  died  at  Rome  1783,  and  at  whose  tomb  it  is  said  the  most 
wonderful  miracles  were  wrought,  appears  to  labour  under  very  reasonable 
suspicions  of  having  been  a  Jansenist.  The  Bishop  of  Boulogne  sent  to 
Rome  one  of  his  letters,  in  which  he  recommended  to  his  parents  a  work 
of  Lejeune,  who  was  a  disciple  of  Quesnel.  It  is  said,  that  in  his  last  hours, 
being  invited  to  take  the  sacrament,  he  had  replied  that  "  it  was  unnecessa- 
ry." It  is  easy  to  see  Jansenistic  principles  in  this.  His  parish-clergyman 
declared  that  Labre  would  never  perform  his  Easter  duties,  i.  e.  receive  the 
communion,  &c.  in  his  parish.     His  miracles  were  laughed  at  in  Spain,  and 


276  ROMAN    CHURCHES  [p.  I.  CH.  XI. 

It  is  certain,  also,  that  the  Oriental  church  pretends  to  show 
its  miracles,  and  even  the  Nestorians  and  Eutychians.  But 
we  are  neither  bound  to  investigate  nor  to  deny  all  these  claims  ; 
for  first,  the  miracles  of  Xavier,  and  any  others  which  they  put 
forward  as  most  probable,  were  wrought  in  confirmation  of 
Christianity  against  paganism,  not  in  proof  of  the  truth  of 
Romish  doctrine  and  the  error  of  ours  ;  secondly,  M.  Bouvier, 
bishop  of  Mans,  after  cardinal  de  la  Luzerne,  says  :  "  Whether 
God  will  perjyetually  exhibit  such  divine  signs  of  sanctity  in  his 
church,  we  dare  not  define  ;  and  therefore  we  do  not  aflarm 
that  sanctity  so  understood,  is  essentially  a  positive  note  of  the 
true  church."^  Thirdly,  at  all  events,  there  is  no  promise  of 
miracles  to  j^articular  churches,  and  therefore  if  the  British 
churches  have  not  pretended  to  any  for  some  time  past,  it 
affords  no  presumption  against  them.  (6.)  The  monastic  in- 
stitute of  the  order  of  St.  Basil,  in  the  Oriental  churches,  is 
preserved  with  a  sanctity,  severity,  and  simplicity  which  might 
put  to  shame  the  Western  convents.^  It  is  well  known  that 
religious  fraternities  have  been  perpetually  degenerating  in  the 
West,  and  scarcely  any  age  has  not  witnessed  reformed  congre- 
gations who  have  returned  to  the  ancient  discipline  from  the 
corruption  and  luxury  of  monastic  life.  Many  of  the  monastic 
orders  in  France  had  fallen  into  scandalous  abuses  before  the 
Revolution.  For  example,  the  Benedictines  of  St.  Germain- 
des-Pres  presented  a  petition  to  the  king,  in  1765,  requesting 
"  to  be  disembarrassed  of  their  habit,  and  freed  from  the  noc- 
turnal ofiice,  and  the  observance  of  maigre"  Their  clothing, 
they  said,  made  them  "  ridiculous  T  ....  "  For  many  years 
a  great  laxity  had  been  observed  in  some  monasteries.  Dissi- 
pation, idleness,  and  love  of  luxury  and  of  the  world,  had  taken 

not  believed  generally  in  France  (Mem.  de  Pie  VI.  at  son  Pontificat,  ii.  ch. 
5).  These  Jansenist  miracles,  however,  converted  an  American  dissenter 
named  Thayer  ;  and  are  boasted  of  by  Romanists  among  us  to  this  day. 

k  Tractatus  de  vera  Ecclesia,  p.  103. 

1  Smith's  account  of  the  Greek  church,  p.  93,  &c. 


SECT.   III.]        NOT  SUPERIOR  TO  OTHER  CHURCHES.  277 

the  place  of  retirement,  labour,  and  the  spirit  of  poverty,  &c. 
,  .  .  "Finally,  this  ipdLriiy  prevailed  in  the  Benedictine  congre- 
gation. .  .  .  Disorders  broke  out  in  many  houses.  There, 
they  abolished  without  formality  the  use  of  maigre  ;  here  they 
retrenched  the  nocturnal  office.  Elsewhere  repasts,  fetes,  con- 
certs, profaned  a  place  destined  to  penitence  and  prayers."'"  I 
doubt  not  that  virtuous  and  holy  men  are  to  be  found  in  some  of 
these  communities,  but  it  is  certain  that  too  many  of  them  have 
been  rather  a  disgrace  than  an  honour  to  their  church.  In 
Spain  and  Portugal  especiahy,  the  immorality  of  the  monastic 
orders  is  notorious  and  scandalous.  If,  therefore,  the  religious 
of  the  British  churches  do  not  unite  in  peculiar  fraternities,  re- 
ligion amongst  us  is  at  least  free  from  many  of  the  scandals 
which  the  Roman  church  has  experienced. 

CATHOLICITY. 

The  Romish  theologians  argue  from  the  superior  diffusive- 
ness of  their  communion,  the  multitude  of  nations  in  all  parts 
of  the  world  who  are  subject  to  the  Roman  pontiff,  and  their 
peculiar  possession  of  the  name  of  catholic,  that  they  are  alone 
in  possession  of  that  attribute  of  the  true  church — catholicity 
or  universality. 

I  do  not  deny  that  their  churches  are  widely  spread  and  nu- 
merous :  without  doubt  they  have  churches  not  only  in  a  great 
part  of  Europe,  but  in  North  and  South  America,  Africa,  India, 
the'  Phillippines,  some  in  Syria,  Chaldeea,  &c.  This  is  all 
very  true.  But  we  must  lay  down  a  principle  which  is  of  the 
utmost  importance  in  determining  the  claim  of  any  church  to 
catholicity.  Catholicity  then  is  a  permanent  attribute  of  the 
church.  The  catholic  church  is  to  be  at  all  times  vuiiversal. 
It  is  represented  in  its  permanent  condition,  as  "  a  great  moun- 
tain which  filled  the  whole  earth."''     Now  it  must  be  remem- 

"  Memoires  Eccl.  xviii.  siecle  ii.  p.  477,  478. 

"  Daniel  ii.  .35.  The  whole  body  of  Roman  theologians  contend  at  length 
against  cardinal  Bellarmine,  and  the  protestants,  that  the  universality  of  the 
church  was  not  to  be  successive,  but  simultaneous  and  permanent. — See 


278  ROMAN  CHURCHES  [p.  I.  CH.  XI. 

bered,  that  in  the  fifteenth  century  all  these  Roman  churches 
beyond  the  continent  of  Europe  were  as  yet  unfounded.     The 
Roman  obedience  then  was  limited  to  Europe.     It  numbered 
no  permanent  adherents  in  Africa,  Asia,   or   America.     The 
Latin  churches  of  the  East,  transplanted  by  the  crusaders,  had 
long  ago  expired.     The  Oriental  church  remained  independent, 
notwithstanding  the  submission  of  the  Greek  emperor,  and  a 
few  of  his  servile  bishops,  at  the  Synod  of  Florence.     In  short, 
the  Roman  obedience  was  then,  as  it  had  been  for  a  long  time, 
and  ordinarily  was,  from  the  time  of  the  dispute  between  Ceru- 
larius  and  Cardinal  Humbert  (a.d.  1054),  limited  almost  entirely 
to  a  part  of  Europe.     It  may  be  pretended  that,  now  and  then, 
reconciliations  took  place  between  the  Roman  church  and  the 
Greeks,  or  the  Eutychians  ;  but  these  reunions  were  only  mo- 
mentary, scarcely   sincere,  and  by  no  means  general.     It  is 
plain,  therefore,-  that  the  Latin  churches  were  not  then  univer- 
sal ;  and  if  they  were  not  then  universal,  it  is  in  vain  to  urge 
their  subsequent  growth  and  present  magnitude  ;  because  uni- 
versality is  a  permanent  attribute   of  the  universal  church  of 
Christ.     They  were  not  always  universal  from  the  eleventh  to 
the  fifteenth  century,  and  therefore  could  then  only  have  consti- 
tuted a  part  of  the  true  church  :  and  as  the  remainder  (viz.  the 
Oriental  church)  still  has  always  continued,  and  the  British  was 
afterwards  separated  from  the  Roman  church  by  the  unworthy 
jealousy  of  the   pontiffs,  it  is  evident  that  the  churches   of  the 
Roman  obedience  are  only  a  part  of  the  catholic  church  now, 
as  they  have  always  been. 

This  being  so,  we  of  course,  on  principle,  do  not  deny  the 
title  of  catholics  to  the  members  of  those  Roman  churches  which 
exist  on  the  continent  of  Europe,  and  in  other  places  where  they 
have  not  separated  from  amj  older  Christian  society ;°  and  this 


Delahogue,   Tract,  de  Ecclesia  Christi,  pars.  ii.  quaest.  iii.  propositio  i. 
Bouvier,  pars  i.  c.  2.  sect.  3.  prop.  3.     See  also  Tournely,  Bailly,  &c. 

°  [Or  intruded  themselves  upon  the  previously  existing  jurisdiction  of 
such  society.] 


SECT.  III.]  NOT  THE  CATHOLIC  CHURCH.  279 

is  the  case  with  the  infinite  majority  of  their  communion.  We 
also  regard  the  title  of  catholic,  as  properly  belonging  to  the 
members  of  the  British  and  Oriental  chm'ches  ;  but  as  these 
churches  do  not  imitate  the  conduct  of  Romanists,  in  pretending 
that  their  branches  of  the  church  are  alone  catholic  ;  and  there- 
fore do  not  apply  the  term  catholic  to  themselves,  as  distinguished 
from  the  Roman  churches  generally  ;  while  the  latter  assume 
this  title,  to  discriminate  themselves  from  the  other  branches  of 
the  church ;  it  follows  naturally,  that  the  ignorant,  who  observe 
the  title  of  catholic  usurped  exclusively  by  the  one  party,  and 
not  denied  absolutely  by  the  other,  should  often  from  civility  give 
that  title  under  circumstances  where  a  right  discrimination,  and 
competent  knowledge,  would  dictate  a  contrary  course.  For  in- 
stance, no  one  of  sufficient  information  could  recognize  the  appel- 
lation of  "catholics"  as  assumed  by  any  schismatics  of  GreatBri- 
tain,  Ireland,  or  America.  He  knows  of  no  catholics  in  these  coun- 
tries, except  those  who  are  members  of  our  catholic  and  apostoli- 
cal churches.  As  to  those  separatists  who  obey  the  Roman  pon- 
tiff, he  recognizes  them  only  under  their  proper  appellations  of 
Papists  or  Romanists,  and  would  not  profane  the  holy  name  of 
catholic,  by  conferring  it  on  those  who  are  separated  from  the 
church  of  Christ.  To  do  so  knowingly,  would  indeed  be  highly 
sinful,  and  would  come  under  the  condemnation  of  them  "that 
call  evil  good,  and  good  evil."P  In  fine,  it  may  be  observed, 
that  the  title  of  catholic  is  by  no  means  peculiar  to  the  Roman 
churches  ;  it  is  equally  enjoyed  by  the  British  and  the  Oriental, 
and  it  is  never  conceded  by  them  to  any  schism,  which  the  Ro- 
man pontiff  has  excited  amongst  the  subjects  of  their  jurisdictions. 

APOSTOLICITY. 

The  Roman  church  alone  is  apostolical ;  for  history  proves 
that  she  has  existed  from  the  time  of  the  apostles.  The  unin- 
terrupted series  of  her  bishops  can  be  shown,  extending  from 

P  Isaiah  v.  20. 


t  ■     /  ■; 

280  ROMAN    CHURCHES.  [p.  I.  CH.  XI. 

St.  Peter  to  the  present  pontiff;  and,  unlike  other  churclics,  she 
alone  has  not  separated  from  any  more  ancient  Christian  soci- 
ety ;  therefore  she  alone  is  apostolical. 

Answer.  The  particular  church  of  Rome  has  existed  from  the 
time  of  St.  Peter  ;  and  many  other  of  the  Roman  churches,  de- 
rived originally  peaceably  from  this,  or  other  apostolical  churches, 
may  also  justly  be  considered  as  apostolical.  But  the  very  same 
may  be  said  of  the  Eastern  and  British  churches,  which  consti- 
tute the  original  Christian  societies  in  their  respective  localities; 
consequently,  the  Roman  churches  are  not  alone  apostolical. 
It  is  further  contended  that  the  Roman  churches  only  have  an 
apostolical  ministry  ;  because  their  ordinations  are  valid,  and 
they  only  have  true  mission,  having  never  fallen  into  schism  or 
heresy.  But  I  have  already  shown  that  the  Eastern  and  British 
churches  are  exactly  in  the  same  position.  '    " 

In  conclusion,  then,  it  may  ,be  affirmed  certainly,  that  the 
churches  of  the  Roman  obedience  form  only  a  part  of  the  catho- 
lic church  of  Christ ;  that  their  authority,  institution,  sanctity, 
&c.  are  by  no  means  superior  to  those  of  other  churches  ;  and 
that,  in  several  respects,  they  are  even  inferior  to  the  rest  of 
the  catholic  church.  The  picture  drawn  of  their  position,  by 
Gregory  XVI.  in  his  encyclical  letter  to  all  the  bishops  in  1832, 
is  truly  deplorable,  though  it  embraces  but  a  part  of  the  evils 
which  afflict  that  church. 

"  We  speak,  venerable  brethren,  that  which  ye  behold  with 
your  own  eyes  ;  which,  therefore,  we  deplore  with  united  tears. 
An  unrestrained  wickedness,  a  shameless  science,  a  dissolute 
licentiousness,  are  triumphant.  The  sanctity  of  holy  things  is 
despised,  and  the  majesty  of  divine  worship,  which  possesses 
such  great  power,  and  is  of  so  great  necessity,  is  blamed,  pro- 
faned, derided  by  wicked  men.  Hence  sound  doctrine  is  per- 
verted, and  errors  of  all  kinds  are  daringly  disseminated.  The 
laws  of  sacred  things,  the  institutions,  the  very  holiest  discipline, 
are  not  safe  from  the  audacity  of  those  who  speak  unrighteous- 
ly. This,  our  see  of  the  most  blessed  Peter,  in  which  Christ 
laid  the  foundation  of  his  church,  is  most  grievously  assailed  ; 


SECT.  III.]     DREADFUL  CONDITION  OF  ROMAN  CHURCHES,  281 

and  the  bonds  of  unity  are  daihj  more  loeakened  and  broken^ 
The  divine  authority  of  the  church  is  impugned,  and,  her  rights 
being  torn  away,  she  is  subjected  to  earthly  considerations ;  and 
reduced  to  a  base  servitude,"^  she  is  most  unjustly  exposed  to  the 
hatred  of  the  people.  The  obedience  due  to  bishops  is  infringed 
and  their  rights  are  trampled  on.  The  academies  and  schools 
resound  in  a  dreadful  manner,  with  new  and  monstrous  opinions, 
by  which  the  catholic  faith  is  no  longer  assailed  secretly  and  by 
mining,  but  a  horrible  and  impious  war  is  now  openly  waged 
against  it.  For  when,  by  the  instruction  and  example  of  the 
teachers,  the  minds  of  youth  are  corrupted,  the  destruction  of 
religion  is  vast,  and  the  vilest  corruption  of  morals  becomes 
general."  He  afterwards  alludes  thus  to  the  opinions  of  the  re- 
forming party  in  the  Romish  church.  "  It  would  be  unlawful, 
and  altogether  contrary  to  that  respect  with  which  the  laws  of 
the  church  are  to  be  received,  to  condemn,  by  an  insane  love  of 
judging,  the  discipline  sanctioned  by  her  ;  which  includes  the 
administration  of  sacred  things,  the  rule  of  morals,  and  the  rights 
of  the  church  and  its  ministers  ;  or  to  represent  it  as  hostile  to 
certain  principles  of  the  rights  of  nature  ;  or  to  pronounce  it  de- 
fective and  imperfect,  and  subject  to  the  civil  magistrate.^     As 


"^  This  probably  alludes  to  the  dissemination  of  anti-papal  principles  in 
Italy,  Austria,  and  Germany,  where  the  maxuns  introduced  by  De  Hontheim, 
Van  Espen,  Eybel,  and  all  the  school  of  modern  canonists,  under  the  influ- 
ence of  Joseph  II.,  Leopold  grand  duke  of  Tuscany,  Tannucci,  &c.  still 
prevail,  and  are  encouraged  by  the  governments  of  those  countries.  These 
principles  reduce  the  papal  power  to  a  mere  name,  and  transfer  it  partly  to 
the  bishops,  but  chiefly  to  the  civil  magistrate.     See  Appendix  I. 

r  The  servitude  to  which  the  German,  Austrian,  and  Italian  churches 
were  reduced,  in  the  time  of  Joseph  II.  has  continued  ever  since.  The 
Galilean  church  is  equally  enslaved  by  the  "  Organic  Articles,"  which  Na- 
poleon annexed,  by  his  own  authority,  to  the  Concordate  of  1801,  by  which 
Christianity  was  restored  in  France. — See  Appendix  III. 

3  This  is  a  manifest  allusion  to  the  principles  promulgated  by  all  the  new 
canonists  and  reforming  theologians,  in  the  Roman  church,  from  the  mid- 
dle of  last  century. 

VOL.  I. — 36 


282  ROMAN    CHURCHES.  [P.  I.  CH.  XI. 

it  is  certain  .  .  .  that  the  church  was  taught  by  Jesus  Christ, 
&c.  ...  it  is  evidently  absurd,  and  most  injurious  to  her,  to  put 
forward  a  certain  restoration  or  regeneration,  as  necessary  to 
provide  for  her  security  and  increase  ;  as  if  she  could  be  sup- 
posed hable  to  defect  or  obscuration,  or  other  evils  of  that  kind  ; 
by  which  attempts  the  innovators  have  it  in  view,  to  lay  the 
foundation  of  a  neio  human  institution,  and  that  what  St.  Cyp- 
rian detested  may  occur  ;  namely,  that  what  is  divine,  may  he- 
come  a  human  church.''''^  .  .  .  .  "And  here  we  wish  to  excite 
your  constancy  for  religion,  against  a  most  shameful  conspiracy, 
formed  against  clerical  celibacy,  which  you  know  every  day  to 
become  more  vehement,  some  even  of  the  ecclesiastical  order 
uniting  with  the  most  abandoned  philosophers  of  our  age  ;   and 
who,  forgetful  of  their  character  and  office,  carried  away  by  the 
blandishments  of  pleasure,   have  proceeded  to  such  a  pitch  of 
license,  that  in  some  places  they  have  dared  to  address  public 
and  reiterated  petitions  to  princes,  to  destroy  this  holy  disci- 
pline."''    Such  is  the  state  of  the  Roman  church  ;   full  of  infi- 
dehty,  immorality,  division,  uneasiness,  innovations,  enslaved 
by  the  civil  powers,  and  rent  internally  by  Jansenism,  heresy, 
schism,  and  indifference.     If  she  alone  constituted  the  catholic 
church,  Christianity  would  indeed  be  at  the  lowest  ebb,  and  the 
gates  of  hell  would  almost  have  prevailed  against  it. 


*  The  allusion  here  is  to  the  Jansenistic  principles  and  practices,  which 
will  be  detailed  in  Appendix  I. 

u  In  Bavaria,  and  other  parts  of  Germany.  See  an  article  on  the  Church 
in  Silesia,  Foreign  Quarterly  Review  for  1827,  p.  515,  &c.  The  original 
of  these  passages,  from  the  bull  of  Gregory  XVI.,  will  be  found  in  Appen- 
dix IV. 


SECT.  IV.]  ROMAN  SOCIETIES.  283 


SECTION    IV.  , 

SOCIETIES    OF    THE    ROMAN    COMMUNION    OF    THE    MODERN 

FOUNDATION.  > 

Hitherto  I  have  spoken  of  the  ancient  churches  of  the  Ro- 
man obedience,  which  were  not  founded  by  an  act  of  separation 
from  older  Christian  societies,  but  were  originally  gathered 
from  the  heathen  world.  I  am  now  to  speak  of  modern  com- 
munities, under  the  title  of  churches  established  or  protected 
by  the  care  of  the  Roman  pontiffs,  in  localities  where  there 
were  previously  existing  branches  of  the  catholic  and  apostolic 
church  ;  and  of  other  modern  Roman  societies.  In  order  to 
judge  rightly  of  these  societies,  we  must  discriminate  several 
different  cases. 

First,  if  members  of  the  Latin  churches  should  find  them- 
selves resident,  in  quest  of  merchandize  or  other  temporal 
objects,  in  the  regions  of  the  Oriental  churches,  and  should  be 
unable,  from  ignorance  of  the  language,  or  from  some  other 
inconvenience,  to  receive  the  full  benefit  of  administration  in 
the  Oriental  church,  it  would  not  be  schismatical  in  them  to 
call  in  the  aid  of  Latin  priests,  with  consent  of  the.  ecclesias- 
tical authorities  of  the  East.^     Accordingly  it  is  known,  that 


"  [A  more  doubtful  and  curious  question  arises,  relative  to  the  establish- 
ment of  distinct  episcopal  jurisdictions  in  such  circumstances.  To  the 
writer  there  seems  to  be  no  good  ground  for  denying  the  fitness  of  such 
establishment  where  the  distinction  of  jurisdiction  by  languag-e  or  lineage, 
is  perfectly  well  defined.  The  position  of  the  bishop  of  the  Scotch  suc- 
cession (Dr.  Luscombe),  resident  in  Paris,  is  defensible  on  this  ground, 
rather  than  on  that  taken  by  JNIr.  Palmer  in  the  last  clause  of  his  fifth  para- 
graph. The  English  on  the  continent  form  a  perfectly  distinct  community, 
needing  provision  for  separate  worship  on  account  of  diversity  of  language, 
&c.  and  in  no  way  endangering  the  unity  of  the  church  where  they  reside, 
by  any  confusion  or  collision  of  jurisdiction.  The  same  may  be  said  of 
the  French  population  in  the  Canadas.  On  similar  grounds,  no  doubt,  the 
episcopal  jurisdiction  of  John  a  Lasco  (himself  in  episcopal  orders)  over 


284  ROMAN   SOCIETIES  [p.  I.  CII.  SI. 

Latin  convents  existed  in  Constantinople,  Jerusalem,  and  other 
parts  of  the  East,  before  tlie  division  of  the  Eastern  and  West- 
ern churches. 

Secondly,  if  the  Latins  of  the  East  were  separated  by  the 
Greeks  from  their  communion  afterv^^ards,  as  appears  to  have 
been  the  case,  it  could  not  be  schismatical  in  them  to  provide 
priests  for  themselves,  and  even  bishops  to  administer  ordination 
and  confirmation.  This  would  be  justified  by  the  necessity  of 
the  case  ;  and  being  in  its  nature  only  a  temporary  arrangement, 
would  not  interfere  with  the  essential  principles  of  unity ."^ 
Hence  we  cannot  altogether  condemn  the  Latins  for  appointing 
some  Latin  priests  and  bishops  in  Palestine  and  Syria,  in  the 
time  of  the  crusades,  and  for  retaining  some  convents  and 
priests  there  still. 

Thirdly,  any  Eastern  heretics  who  chose  to  unite  themselves 
with  the  Roman  communion,  and  who  were  on  that  account 
not  acknowledged  by  the  Oriental  churches,  were  still  not  in 
schism.  Hence  the  Maronites  of  Syria,  who  renounced  the 
Eutychian  errors,  and  the  Lidians  of  St.  Thomas,  who  re- 
nounced the  Nestorian  heresy,''  and  remain  to  this  day  united 

the  foreign  refugees  in  England,  was  committed  to  him  by  the   English 
reformers] 

'^  [That  depends  upon  the  terms  of  the  exclusion.  If  it  were  not,  (as 
in  fact,  in  the  specified  case,  it  was  not,)  absolute  and  unconditional,  tlie 
terms  required  must  be  proven  to  be  contrary  to  Christian  duty,  before  the 
separated  party  can  be  justified  in  remaining  so,  and  the  question  is  at  once 
involved  in  all  the  intricacies  of  the  adiaphoristic  controversy.  Were  any 
of  the  points  in  discussion  between  the  Eastern  and  Western  churches 
sufficient  to  warrant  the  Latins  resident  in  the  East,  in  refusing  compliance 
with  the  demands  of  the  Greeks  ■?  Their  refusal,  and  not  the  demand, 
must  be  regarded  as  the  immediate  occasii^fl  of  their  separated  state ;  and 
the  writer  does  not  see  how,  on  the  sound  principles  of  Mr.  Palmer's  trea- 
tise, they  can  be  justified  from  the  charge  of  schism,  as  setting  up  aUar 
against  altar  in  the  circumstances  stated  in  the  text.] 

X  [Does  the  author  regard  the  transactions  at  Goa  as  a  bona  fide  renun- 
ciation on  the  part  of  the  persecuted  Syrians  '\  and  consider  the  native 
Christians  of  Malabar  as  brought  by  it  under  Roman  jurisdiction  ?     The 


SECT.  IV.]  OF  MODERN  FOUNDATION.  285 

to  the  Roman  see,  are  not  cut  off  from  catholic  unity,  though 
they  do  not  communicate  with  the  other  Oriental  churches. 

Fourthly,  it  was  entirely  unlawful  for  the  Latins  to  eject  the 
Greek  bishops  or  priests,  or  to  force  them  by  persecution  to 
submit  to  the  Roman  see.  It  was  equally  unlawful  to  ordain 
Latin  bishops  in  their  place,  and  to  treat  them  as  heretics  or 
schismatics.  But  this  was  done  in  Cyprus,  and  many  of  the 
islands  of  the  Archipelago,  and  in  Greece.  Therefore  all  the 
Latin  societies  thus  formed,  had  a  schismatical  origin  ;  and 
this  fault  could  not  be  healed  by  the  encouragement  which  the 
Roman  pontiffs  afforded  to  these  proceedings,  which  was  in 
itself  blameable,  and  proceeded  from  false  and  exaggerated 
notions  of  their  own  rights. 

Fifthly,  when  Roman  churches  were  founded  in  South 
America,  Canada,  the  Philippines,  &c.  by  the  Europeans  who 
first  colonized  or  subdued  those  countries,  such  churches  are 
altogether  free  from  schism,  and  are  invested  with  the  original 
rights  of  catholic  churches,  so  that  no  one  has  a  right  to  estab- 
hsh  rival  communities  among  them,  with  a  view  to  oppose  their 
authority,  or  draw  proselytes  from  them.  If,  in  Canada,  the 
English  community  united  to  our  catholic  churches  have  bish- 
ops and  priests,  it  is  only  as  a  matter  of  necessity,  because  the 
church  there  refuses  them  communion,  and  they  are  properly 
for  the  English  only.  The  arrangement  must  be  considered 
only  provisional  in  a  certain  measure,  and  not  designed  to  inter- 
fere with  the  prior  claims  of  the  Roman  churches  there,  within 
their  proper  districts.  The  same  may  be  observed  of  our 
clergy  on  the  continent  of  Europe. 

Sixthly,  when  certain  individuals,  in  obedience  to  the  exhor- 
tation of  papal  emissaries,  or  to  the  directions  of  Roman  pon- 
tiffs, went  out  and  separated  themselves  from  the  communion 
of  the  catholic  church  of  their  country,  when  they  established 
rival  altars,  a  rival  priesthood,  and  endeavoured  to  withdraw 

Avriter  would  be  inclined  to  look  upon  their  last  state,  in  such  case,  as  worse 
than  the  first.] 


286  ROMAN    CHURCHES.  [p.  I.  CH.  XI. 

the  faithful  from  obedience  to  their  legitimate  pastors  ;  then  it 
is  plain  that  such  men  were  guilty  of  that  aggravated  schism, 
which  the  Second  (Ecumenical  Council  calls  heresy  ;  and  that 
they  were  altogether  cut  off  from  the  unity  of  the  church. 
Such  was  the  conduct  of  the  Romish  or  popish  party  in  Eng- 
land and  Ireland,  who  fell  from  the  catholic  church  in  the  reign 
of  Queen  Elizabeth,  and  have  not  ceased  to  rage  against  her 
ever  since.  This  subject  will  be  enlarged  on  elsewhere,  and 
the  original  of  these  sects  will  be  developed. ^ 

Seventhly,  Schismatics  do  not  cease  to  be  so  by  a  mere 
change  of  country.  Therefore  the  papists  who  went  from  this 
country,  to  establish  colonies  in  the  United  States  of  North 
America,  were  schismatics  when  they  arrived  there  ;  and 
always  remaining  separated  from  that  branch  of  the  catholic 
apostolic  church  which  was  established  there,  they  only  perpetu- 
ated their  schism.  In  fine,  when  America  received  bishops 
from  our  churches,  the  schismatics  constituted  a  rival  episco- 
pacy,^ and  so  remain  to  this  day  separated  from  the  true  church. 


T  See  Part  II.  Chapters  II.  and  X. 

»  Dr.  Seabury,  Bishop   of  Connecticut,  was  consecrated  by  the  Most 
Reverend  Primus,   Dr.  Kilgour,  and  other  bishops  of  Scotland,  A.n.  1784. 
Dr.  Provost,  bishop  of  New- York,  and  Dr.  White  of  Pennsylvania,  were 
consecrated  by  Dr.  Moore,   the  Most  Reverend  Primate  of  all  England, 
and  other  English  bishops,   in  1787  ;  as  was  Dr.  Madison,  bishop  of  Vir- 
ginia, in  1790.    The  dioceses  of  Maryland.  South  Carolina,  Massachusetts, 
&c.,  which  had  all  been  previously  constituted,  received  bishops  about  the 
same  time.     The  Roman  pontiff  erected,  in  1789,  the  rival  bishopric  of 
Baltimore  ;  and  nominated  to  it  Dr.  John  Carroll,  who  was  consecrated  in 
England  1790,  and  headed  the  schism  in  America.     In  1808,  the  pontiff 
raised  the  see  of  Baltimore  to  be  arelii- episcopal,  and  pretended  to  erect  sees 
of  New- York,  Philadelphia,  Boston  and  Bardstown,  in  opposition  to  the  pre- 
viously existing  churches  of  those  localities.     There  are  very  serious  diffi- 
culties affecting  the  regularity,  and  even  the  validity  of  the  ordination  of 
the  above-mentioned  Carroll,  and  all  the  Romish  clergy  of  the   United 
States  derived  from  him  ;    in  consequence  of  his  ordination  having  been 
performed  by  only  one  titular  bishop,  Dr.  Walmsley,  who  appears  to  have 


OBJECT.]  ROMAN    CHURCHES.  287 


OBJECTIONS   ANSWERED. 

I.  The  Homilies  of  the  church  of  England  deny  that  the 
Roman  is  a  part  of  the  Christian  church.  Having  defined  the 
true  church,  and  explained  its  notes  or  marks,  it  is  said  :  "If 
you  will  compare  this  with  the  church  of  Rome,  not  as  it  was 
in  the  beginning,  but  as  it  is  at  present,  and  hath  been  for  the 
space  of  nine  hundred  years  and  odd,  you  will  perceive  the 
state  thereof  to  be  so  far  wide  from  the  nature  of  the  true 
church  that  nothing  can  be  more.""^  Therefore  the  Homilies 
deny  the  Roman  to  be  a  part  of  the  church  of  Christ. 

Amwer.  (1.)  This  is  merely  used  in  the  way  oi  argument 
against  the  position  of  the  popes  of  Rome,  that  they  "  are  the 
chief  heads  and  the  principal  part  of  the  church,  therefore  they 
have  the  Holy  Ghost  for  ever ;  and  whatsoever  things  they 
decree,  are  undoubted  verities  and  oracles  of  the  Holy  Ghost." 
The  "  godly  and  wholesome  doctrine "  inculcated  by  the 
Homily,  in  denying  this  position,  we  are  bound  to  receive  ; 
but  the  particular  argument  on  which  this  denial  rests,  is  not  a 
thing  to  which  we  are  in  any  degree  bound.  (2.)  These  ex- 
pressions relate  only  to  the  Roman  pontiffs  and  their  immedi- 
ate "  adherents,"  as  the  context  shows,  and  by  no  means  to  the 
whole  Western  church.  (3.)  Being  used  in  a  discourse  de- 
signed for  the  people,  and  intended  to  guard  them  against  the 
papal  emissaries,  they  must  be  considered  in  some  degree  popu- 
lar and  rhetorical,  and  are  not  to  be  taken  literally  and  strictly 
as  expressing  the  formal  sense  of  the  church. 

n.  The  homilies  elsewhere  speak  of  the  "  idolatrous  church," 
as  "  a  foul,  filthy,  old,  withered  harlot,  (for  she  is  indeed  of  an- 
cient years,")  &c.^' 

laboured  under  a  similar  irregularity,  or  deficiency  himself. — See  Memoires 
Eccl.  xviii.  siecle,  torn.  iii.  p.  \i'Z.  145.  485.  See  also  Part  YI.  chapter 
Romish  ( )rdinations. 

a  Sermon  for  Whitsunday,  pt.  ii. 

^  Sermon  against  Peril  of  Idolatry,  part  iii. 


288  ROMAN    CHURCHES.  [p.  I.  CII.  XI. 

Ansrver.  In  this  place  it  is  not  said,  what  church  is  the 
"  idolatrous  church,"  and  we  may  most  properly-  understand 
these  expressions  to  apply  to  that  pai'ty  in  the  Roman  church, 
which  is  involved  in  idolatrous  honourincr  of  imaQ;es,  not  to  the 
whole  of  that  church.  Besides  these  expressions  are  only 
used  ohiter,  and  not  in  the  way  of  formal  doctrine  or  definition, 
therefore  we  are  by  no  means  bound  to  them  in  every  point. 

III.  The  Homily  against  Peril  of  Idolatry  says,  that  "  not 
only  the  unlearned  and  simple,  but  the  learned  and  wise  ;  not 
the  people  only,  but  the  bishops  ;  not  the  sheep,  but  also  the 
shepherds  themselves  .  .  .  being  blinded  by  the  bewitching  of 
images,  as  blind  guides  of  the  blind,  fell  both  into  the  pit  of 
damnable  idolatry.  In  the  which  all  the  world,  as  it  were 
drowned,  continued  until  our  age,  by  the  space  of  above  eight 
hundred  years,  unspoken  against  in  a  manner  ....  So  that 
laity  and  clergy,  learned  and  unlearned,  all  ages,  sects,  and 
degrees  of  men,  women,  and  children,  of  whole  Christendom, 
(a  horrible  and  most  dreadful  thing  to  think,)  have  been  at 
once  drowned  in  abominable  idolatry,  of  all  other  vices  most 
detested  of  God,  and  most  damnable  to  man,  and  that  by  the 
space  of  eight  hundred  years  and  more.'"^ 

Answer.  The  meaning  is,  that  some  persons  in  every  class 
were  guilty  of  idolatry,  which  is  very  certain  ;  but  not  that  the 
whole  church,  literally  speaking,  fell  into  damnable  idolatry, 
for  if  so,  it  must  have  entir-ely  failed,  which  would  be  contrary 
to  the  belief  of  the  church  of  England.  In  fact,  the  Homilies 
themselves  (Sermon  on  Whitsunday,  part  ii.)  affirm  that  the 
Holy  Ghost  was  always  to  abide  with  the  church.  "  Neither 
must  we  think  that  this  Comforter  was  either  promised,  or  else 
given  only  to  the  apostles,  but  also  to  the  universal  church  of 
Christ,  dispersed  through  the  whole  world.  For  unless  the 
Holy  Ghost  had  been  always  present,  governing  and  preserv- 
ing the  church  from  the  beginning,  it  could  never  have  sustain- 

"  Sermon  against  Peril  of  Idolatry,  part  lii. 


OBJECT.]  ANTICHRIST.  289 

ed  so  many  and  great  brunts  of  affliction  and  persecution,  with 
so  little  damage  as  it  hath.  And  the  words  of  Christ  are  most 
plain  in  this  behalf,  saying,  that  '  the  Spirit  of  truth  shall  abide 
with  them  for  ever,  that  he  would  be  with  them  always,  (he 
meaneth  by  grace,  virtue,  and  power,)  even  to  the  world's 
end.'  "  This  is  the  real  ^^ godly  and  ivholesome  doctrine''''  of 
the  Homilies,  formally  and  clearly  laid  down  :  and  hence  it  fol- 
lows, that  the  whole  church  (speaking  strictly)  can  never  have 
fallen  into  damnable  idolatry,  because  the  Spirit  of  truth  would 
no  longer  have  been  with  her.  We  must  therefore  interpret 
the  passage  objected,  and  those  of  the  preceding  objections,  in 
a  sense  consistent  with  the  perpetuity  and  catholicity  of  the 
church. 

IV.  TJie  errors  of  the  Roman  churches  contrary  to  the  doc- 
trine and  morality  of  the  Gospel,  are  destructive  of  their  charac- 
ter as  churches  of  Christ.  "' 

Answer.  Whatever  may  be  the  extent  of  these  errors,  I  an- 
swer in  the  words  of  Chillingworth,  a  most  determined  opponent 
of  Romanism  :  "  Those  revelations,  the  church  of  Rome  not 
seeing,  by  reason  of  the  veil  before  their  eyes,  their  church's 
supposed  infallibility  ;  I  hope  the  denial  of  them  shall  not  be 
laid  to  their  charge,  no  otherwise  than  as  building  hay  and 
stubble  on  the  foundation,  not  overthrowing  the  foundation  it- 
self."i 

V.  The  Roman  pontiff  is  Antichrist,  the  beast,  and  the  man 
of  sin  ;  therefore  all  who  have  the  sign  of  the  beast,  that  is,  all 
of  the  Roman  communion,  are  cut  off  from  the  true  church  of 
Christ  which  was  driven  into  the  wilderness." 

Ansxoer.  It  is  disputed  by  many  of  our  theologians,  whether 
those  prophecies  really  relate  to  the  Roman  pontiffs  :  but  sup- 
posing that  they  do,  I  deny  absolutely  the  conclusion  which  is  at- 
tempted to  be  drawn  from  them,  for  all  who  apply  these  prophe- 


"*  Chillingworth,  chapter  iii.  s.  21. 

e  [See  the  Supplement,  at  the  end  ol"  the  second  vohimc,  section  II.] 
VOL.  1. — 37 


290  ROMAN   CHURCHES.  [p.  I.   CH.  XI. 

cies  to  the  Roman  see  affirm,  that  the  reign  of  Antichrist  had 
begun,  at  latest,  in  the  eighth  century  ;  but  the  universal  church 
of  Christ  held  communion  with  the  see  of  Rome,  till  the  ele- 
venth century  at  least ;  therefore,  according  to  this  objection^ 
the  whole  church  of  Christ  must  have  failed  and  become  apos- 
tate for  several  centuries,  which  is  a  decidedly  heretical  posi- 
tion, contrary  to  the  Christian  faith.  Therefore  we  may  assume 
it  as  certain,  that  communion  with  the  Roman  see  is  no  sign  of 
apostacy  from  Christ.  It  must  be  further  added,  that  the 
Western  churches  were  subjugated  to  the  Roman  pontiffs  by 
the  aid  of  forged  decretals,  and  other  impostures,  by  the  force  of 
the  civil  powers,  and  by  the  usurpations  and  threats  of  the  pon- 
tiffs, not  by  their  own  mere  choice  and  free  will,^  and  the  sub- 
mission they  now  pay  to  Rome,  does  not  arise  from  any  desire 
on  their  part  to  uphold  an  unlawful  and  usurped  authority,  biit 
from  a  belief  founded  on  deceitful  but  probable  reasons,  that  it 
is  of  Divine  institution.  Therefore  they  ought  rather  to  be 
pitied  and  excused  for  this,  than  harshly  condemned. 

VI.  The  adoration  of  the  host,  practised  in  all  the  Western 
churches  before  the  Reformation,  was  grossly  idolatrous,  and 
as  every  one  was  compelled  to  unite  in  this  act,  the  whole 
Western  church  must  have  been  idolatrous  and  apostate,  and 
have  ceased  to  be  a  part  of  Christ's  church.      ,     , 

Ansioer.  I  do  not  deny  that  idolatry  was  practised  by  some 
in  the  adoration  of  the  host,  but  unless  it  can  be  proved  that  all 
the  members  of  the  Western  churches  were,  as  such,  obliged 
to  commit  those  acts  of  idolatry,  there  would  be  no  proof  that 
those  churches  were  apostate  ;  for  the  idolatry  may  have  been 
merely  the  abuse  of  individuals,  not  the  institution  of  the 
church.  Such,  in  fact,  appears  to  have  been  the  case.  In  the 
office  of  the  mass  or  Roman  liturgy,  the  host,  or  consecrated 
elements,  are  elevated  by  the  priest  immediately  after  the  words 
of  institution,  and  at  the  same  instant  all  the  congregation  pros- 
trate themselves,  with  the  intention  of  worshipping  the  body 

f  See  Part  VII. 


OBJECT.]  ADORATION    OF  THE    HOST.  291 

and  blood  of  Christ  with  divine  honour.  Such  at  least  is  now 
commonly  understood  to  be  the  object  of  the  people  in  this  par- 
ticular action.  But  there  is  reason  to  suppose,  that  the  adora- 
tion of  the  host  was  not  contemplated  by  the  Western  churches, 
in  appointing  the  elevation  and  its  accompanying  rites,  and  that 
no  one  was  obliged  to  worship  the  host  at  the  elevation. 

The  elevation  is,  comparatively  speaking,  not  an  ancient  rite. 
The  Roman  ritualists,  Bona,&  Merati,^  Benedict  XIV.,'  Le 
Brun,^  &c.,  acknowledge  that  the  time  of  its  origin  is  uncer- 
tain, and  that  there  is  no  trace  of  its  existence  before  the  ele- 
venth or  twelfth  century  in  the  West.  The  Ordo  Romanus, 
Amalarius,  Walafrid  Strabo,  and  Micrologus,  make  no  mention 
of  the  rite,  though  the  last  of  these  ritualists  lived  at  the  end  of 
the  eleventh  century.  The  truth  is,  tliat  no  certain  documents 
refer  to  it,  until  the  beginning  of  the  thirteenth  century,  but  it 
may  possibly  have  existed  in  some  places  in  the  twelfth.  The 
synodical  constitutions  of  Odo  de  Sulh,  bishop  of  Paris,  about 
1200,  appoint  this  elevation,  ^  and  it  was  probably  then  first 
introduced  into  the  diocese  of  Paris.  Innocent  III.,  who  wrote 
on  the  ceremonies  of  the  mass  at  the  beginning  of  the  thirteenth 
century,  does  not  speak  of  it,  but  in  the  time  of  Honorius  III.  it 
had  come  into  use,  for  he  mentions  it  in  an  epistle  to  the  Latin 
bishops  of  the  patriarchate  of  Antioch,  a.d.  1219,  where  he 
commands  that  at  the  elevation  the  people  should  reverently 
how.  "  Sacerdos  quihbet  frequenter  doceat  plebem  suam,  ut 
cum  in  celebratione  missarum  elevatur  hostia  salutaris,  quilibet 
reverenter  inclinet."™  This  was  inserted  in  the  decretals  (c. 
sane  de  celebratione  missarum)  by  Gregory  IX.  his  successor, 
and  thus  became  the  laio  of  the  West.     It  is  spoken  of  by 


e  Bona,  Rer.  Liturgic.  lib.  ii.  c.  13. 

h  Gavanti  Thesaurus  a  Merati. 

'  Lambertinus,  de  Missa,  p.  115,  &c. 

^  Le  Brun,  Ceremonies  de  la  Messe,  torn,  i.  p.  469,  &c. 

'  Harduini  Concilia,  torn.  vi.  p.  1946. 

"  See  Raynaldus,  ad  ann.  1219. 


292  ROMAN   CHURCHES.  [p.  I.  CH.  XI. 

Bonaventure,''  Durand,°  and  the  Council  of  Lambeth''  in  the 
latter  part  of  the  same  century,  and  cardinal  Guido  is  said  to 
have  introduced  this  rite,  or  some  part  of  it,  at  Cologne  about 
1265.1  These  are  the  first  authentic  notices  of  the  elevation, 
for  the  passages  adduced  by  Le  Brun  from  Robertus  Paululus, 
or  Hugo  St.  Victor,  and  from  Hildebert,  who  lived  in  the  twelfth 
century,  are,  (as  he  admits,)  not  sufficiently  clear  to  be  of  use 
unless  aided  by  other  evidence  ;  and  the  "  customs  "  of  the 
Carthusians,  Premonstratenses,  and  Camaldulite  monks,  which 
he  alleges  to  prove  its  existence  in  the  twelfth  century,  were 
most  probably  added  to  in  later  times. "^  Honorius  speaks  of 
some  elevation,*'  but  it  is  doubtful  whether  he  means  this,  or 
the  lesser  elevation  at  the  end  of  the  canon,  when  there  is  no 
adoration. 

We  know  then,  that  in  the  thirteenth  century  the  host  was 
elevated,  and  the  people  bowed  or  knelt  at  the  same  time.  But 
it  is  worthy  of  remark,  that  if  we  are  to  judge  by  the  authori- 
ties referred  to  by  the  Roman  ritualists  themselves,  the  writers 
of  that,  and  the  following  ages,  did  not  generally  interpret  this 
as  designed  for  the  adoration  of  the  eucharist,  or  of  Christ  in 
the  eucharist.  Bonaventure  (a.d.  1270)  assigns  nine  reasons 
for  the  elevation,'  some  of  which  relate  to  the  duty  or  disposi- 
tions of  the  people  on  the  occasion  ;  but  he  does  not  notice  the 
adoration  of  the  host.  William,  bishop  of  Paris,  about  1220, 
ordered  a  bell  to  be  rung  at  the  elevation,  that  the  people  might 
be  excited  to  prat/,  not  to  worship  the  host.     "  Praecipitur  quod 


n  De  Myst.  Missae,  oper.  vii.  83.  1 

"  Rationale  Div.  Off.  iv.  c.  41. 

P  Lyndwood,  Provinciale  Anglias.  Const.  Peckham,  1281. 

1  Raynaldus,  ann.  1203.  This  date  assigned  in  Raynaldus'  Annals  is 
obviously  an  error,  as  both  Fleury  and  he  himself  afterwards  speak  of  this 
very  cardinal  on  the  same  mission  in  Germany,  a.d.  1265. 

r  Ceremonies  de  la  Messe,  i.  469. 

"  Gemma,  lib.  i.  c.  46. 
De  Myster.  Missse,  opera,  torn.  vii.  p.  83.  ; 


OBJECT.]  ADORATION    OF    THH   HOST.  ^  293 

in  celebratione  missarum,  quando  corpus  Christi  elevatur,  in 
ipsa  elevatione,  vel  paulo  ante,  campana  pulsetur,  sicut  alias 
fuit,  statutum,  ut  sic  mentes  fidelium  ad  orationem  excitcntur."" 
Cardinal  Guido  (a.d.  1265)  ordained,  that  at  the  elevation  all 
the  people  should  pray  for  pardon.  "  Bonam  illic  consuetudi- 
nem  instituit,  ut  ad  elevationem  hostile  omnis  populus  in  Ec- 
clesia  ad  sonitum  nolae  veniam  peter ei,  sicque  usque  ad  calicis 
benedictionem  prostratus  jaceret."^  The  Synod  of  Cologne 
(a.d.  1536)  explained  the  people's  duty  at  the  elevation  to  con- 
sist, in  remembering  the  Lord's  death,  and  returning  him 
thanks  with  minds  raised  to  heaven.  "  Post  elevationem  con- 
secrati  corporis  ac  sanguinis  Domini  ....  turn  videretur  silen- 
dum,  et  ab  omni  populo  mortis  Dominicse  commemoratio  ha- 
benda,  prostratisque  humi  corporibus,  animis  in  coe,lum  erectis, 
gratiae  agendas  Christo  Redemptori,  qui  nos  sanguine  suo  lavit 
morteque  redemit.""^ 

On  the  other  hand,  Durand'^  (1286),  Lyndviroody  (1430), 
the  diocesan  Synod  of  Augsburg  (1548),  and  cardinal  Hosius, 
one  of  the  papal  legates  at  the  Synod  of  Trent,  understood  the 
prostration  of  the  people  as  designed  for  the  adoration  of 
Christ  as  present  in  the  Eucharist.  Certainly,  this  has  latterly 
become  the  common  opinion,  but  from  what  has  been  said  above, 
it  appears  that  before  the  Reformation,  and  afterwards,  many 
persons  at  the  elevation  directed  their  worship  to  God  and 
Christ  simply,  without  any  exclusive  reference  to  the  presence 
of  Christ  in  the  Eucharist  ;  and  it  does  not  seem  that  such  a 
practice  is  even  now  unlawful  in  the  Roman  churches. 

If  this  be  the  case,  the  Western  churches  before  the  Refor- 
mation cannot  be  accused  of  such  idolatry  in  the  mass  as  would 
have  amounted  to  apostacy,  for  they  did  not  enjoin  or  require 

u  Binii  Concilia,  t.  vii.  pars  i.  p.  536.  ■     . :  is 

'  Raynaldus,  ann.  1203. 

*  Synodus  Colon,  pars  ii,  can.  14. 
=t  Rationale  Div.  Off.  iv.  41. 

*  Provinciale,  de  Celebratione  Missarum.  c.  Altissimus  v.  Elevatione. 


294  ,  .  ROMAN    CHURCHES.  [p.  I.  CH.  XI. 

any  one  to  worship  the  host  at  the  elevation.  I  say  this  even 
on  the  supposition  that  there  is  nothing  in  the  Eucharist  but 
mere  bread  and  vkrine.  The  argument  is  entirely  independent 
of  the  question  of  the  real  presence.  But  if  Christ  be  in  a 
special  and  mysterious  manner  present  in  these  "  holy  myste- 
ries,"^ as  the  infinite  majority  of  Christians  have  at  all  times 
firmly  and  fervently  believed,  according  to  the  more  simple  and 
unrestrained  interpretation  of  Holy  Scripture  ;  the  truly  reli- 
gious man  cannot  but  be  profoundly  impressed  with  sentiments 
of  awe  and  veneration  in  the  more  immediate  presence  of  the 
Divine  Saviour  of  the  world.  He  will  feel  with  the  patriarch  : 
"  How  dreadful  is  this  place  !  this  is  none  other  but  the  house 
of  God,  and  this  is  the  gate  of  heaven."  Nor  will  he  need  the 
voice  of  God  to  say  :  "  Put  off  thy  shoes  from  thy  feet;  for 
the  place  whereon  thou  standest  is  holy  ground."  Now,  there  is 
every  reason  to  believe,  that  of  those  who  intended  their  wor- 
ship at  the  elevation  to  be  directed  to  Christ,  as  more  immedi- 
ately present  in  the  holy  Eucharist ;  many  directed  it  simply  to 
Christ  himself,  and  not  to  the  external  part  of  the  sacrament 
whether  substance  or  species.  And  such  men  could  not  be 
properly  charged  with  idolatry,  because  their  worship  was  not 
directed  to  an  idol,  nor  to  a  false  god,  nor  to  a  creature.  It  is 
clear,  however,  that  others  have  worshipped  the  elements  them- 
selves with  divine  honour,  as  our  writers  have  shown,  and  those 
who  did  so  cannot  be  excused  from  the  guilt  of  idolatry.  But 
this  imputation  cannot  justly  rest  either  on  the  whole  Western 
church  before  the  Reformation,  nor  on  the  Roman  churches  in 
general  since,  as  bishops  Bramhall,^  Jeremy  Taylor,*^  &;c.  have 
taught. 

VH.  It  may  be  further  objected,  in  reply  to  the  preceding 
conclusions,  that  the  declaration  against  transubstantiation,  pre- 
scribed by  act  of  parliament  (30  Car.  II.  c.  1.),  affirms  the  Ro- 

»  Exhortation  in  the  Office  of  the  Holy  Communion. 
»  BramhaU,  Works,  p.  172.  ^  Taylor,  Liberty  of  Prophesying. 


OBJECT.]  DECLARATION  AGAINST  TRANSUBSTANTIATION.  295 

man  churches  to  be  idolatrous.  "  I,  A.  B.  do  solemnly  and 
sincerely,  in  the  presence  of  God,  profess,  &;c.  .  .  .  that  the 
invocation  or  adoration  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  or  any  other  saint, 
and  the  sacrifice  of  the  mass,  as  they  are  now  used  in  the  church 
of  Rome  are  superstitious  and  idolatrous,''''  &c.    ;    ' 

Answer.  When  it  was  proposed  in  parliament  to  establish  this 
test  in  order  to  exclude  papists  from  various  offices,  the  deeply 
learned  Dr.   Gunning,   bishop  of  Ely,   contended,  after  bishop 
Jeremy  Taylor  and  others,  that  the  Roman  churches  in  general 
were  not  properly  idolatrous  ;  but  when  the  act  had  passed,  he 
found  nothing  in  this  declaration  absolutely  to  prevent  him  from 
taking  it.     Therefore  it  is  to  be  supposed  capable  of  an  inter- 
pretation consistent  with  his  views. "=     Now  in  a  formulary  of 
this  sort,  where  various  points  are  noted  in  common  with  seve- 
ral marks  of  censure,  it  is  sufficient  if  we  believe  that  each 
particular  point  condemned,  rightly  comes  under  some  one  head 
of  censure,  or  that  each  of  the  censures  is  applicable  to  some 
one  of  the  points  condemned.     Thus,  when  we  affirm  the  "  in- 
vocation or  adoration  of  saints,  and  the  sacrifice  of  the  mass  to 
be  superstitious  and   idolatrous,"    it  is  sufficient  if  we   under- 
stand the  "  idolatry  "  to  refer  to  the  "  adoration  of  saints,"  and 
the  "  superstition "  to  their  "  invocation,  and  the  sacrifice  of 
the  mass."     And  who  can  reasonably  deny  that  the  adoration 
of  saints  actually  practised  by  some  "  in  the  church  of  Rome," 
is  idolatrous  ;    that  the    invocation  of  saints  is  superstitious, 
unnecessary,  and  tending  to  great  abuses  ;  or  that  the  sacrifice 
of  the  mass,  or  the  Roman  liturgy,  is  encumbered  by  supersti- 
tious rites  and  ceremonies  ?     All  this  we  readily  admit ;  but  it 
does  not  oblige  us  to  maintain,  that  the  whole  Roman  church  is 
so  idolatrous,  that  it  is  really  apostate,  and  no  part  of  the  church 
of  Christ.  :  .'-i 


c  [This  remark  seems  incautious.  It  looks  very  like  the  Jesuitical  doc- 
trine of  probabiUty.  Dr.  Gunning,  no  doubt,  had  his  solution.  But  to  pro- 
nounce such  unknown  solution  to  be  one  of  which  the  act  "  is  capable," 
is  venturing  too  much  on  the  wisdom  and  integrity  of  an  individuul] 


296  '-'  ROMAN    CHURCHES.  [p.   I.  CH.  XI. 

VIII.  The  XlXth  Article  of  the  church  of  England  declares 
that  "  the  church  of  Rome  hath  erred,  not  only  in  their  living 
and  manner  of  ceremonies,  but  also  in  matters  of  faith." 
Therefore  it  cannot  be  a  part  of  the  Christian  church. 

Answer.  The  Article  only  affirms  that  the  Roman  church 
has  erred  in  matters  of  faith,  e.  g.  in  the  case  of  Liberius  and 
Honorius  ;  there  is  no  assertion  that  it  does  now  err  in  faith. 
The  object  is  to  deny  the  infallibihty  of  the  particular  church  of 
Rome.  ■   '        -■    .     '.  '';''  '.'-  '■■  .- '  ''•';■'  ■■•  /  :'■  -  • :  ■ 

IX.  If  the  Roman  churches  be  churches  of  Christ,  it  must 
be  unlawful  for  any  one  to  separate  himself  from  them,  and  be- 
come a  Protestant  in  France,  Germany,  &c.    ■  :   • 

Answer.  It  is  always  right  to  embrace  the  truth,  and  if,  in 
consequence  of  maintaining  the  truth,  any  one  should  be  ex- 
communicated by  those  who  are  misled  by  the  authority  of  their 
church,  erroneously  supposed  infallible,  he  is  notiu  schism,  and 
may  lawfully  consort  with  those  who  are  not  themselves  in- 
volved in  schism,  and  by  whom  the  truth  is  maintained.  But 
he  ought  not  to  forsake  his  church  voluntarily,  but  rather  remain 
in  its  communion,  and  endeavour  with  prudence  and  humility 
to  edify  his  brethren. 

X.  If  the  Romish  be  true  churches,  then  it  is  unlawful  to 
send  missionaries  among  them,  to  establish  any  rival  worship, 
seek  for  converts  among  them,  &c. 

Aiisiver.  The  rule  of  fraternal  charity  encourages  different 
parts  of  the  church,  to  aid,  if  possible,  in  the  dissemination  of 
perfect  Christianity  among  all  their  brethren.  Therefore  what- 
ever can  be  done  by  writings  and  conferences,  managed  with- 
out acerbity,  and  without  intrusion  on  the  appointed  sphere  of 
others,  may  be  lawfully  resorted  to.  But  it  is  inconsistent  with 
the  true  principles  of  catholic  unity  for  any  branch  of  the  church 
to  send  missionaries  to  raise  a  ?^ival  worship,  and  seek  for 
converts  in  the  bosom  of  another.  This  has  been  the  conduct 
of  the  Roman  pontiffs  in  relation  to  our  churches.  But  it  is 
not  schismatical  to  provide  for  the  worship  of  our  own  people 
who  may  travel  in  foreign  lands,  supposing  that  through  some 


OBJECT.]  VARIOUS   DIFFICULTIES.  297 

error  or  prejudice,  they  are  not  received  by  the  churches  of 
those  countries.  In  fine,  it  must  always  be  borne  in  mind, 
that  the  rights  attributed  to  the  Roman  churches  do  not  in  any 
degree  concern  the  schisms  raised  by  the  pontiffs  in  these 
countries,  which  are  to  be  viewed  and  treated  as  altogether  cut 
off  from  the  catholic  church. 

XI.  If  the  Roman  be  true  churches,  and  if  (as  you  allege) 
it  is  not  necessary  to  institute  ah  examination  into  particular 
doctrines,  but  we  are  to  be  guided  in  a  great  measure  by  the 
church  ;  it  follows  that  if  an  Englishman  were  resident  in 
France  or  Spain,  he  ought  to  join  in  communion  with  the  Ro- 
man churches  there,  and,  in  order  to  do  so,  ought  to  subscribe 
the  creed  of  Pius  IV.  in  which  the  invocation  of  saints,  purga- 
tory, the  papal  supremacy,  &c.  are  included.  For  according 
to  you,  there  is  no  necessity  to  examine  the  truth  of  these 
doctrines  :  they  should  be  received  on  the  authority  of  the 
church. 

Answer.  The  law  of  unity  requires  that  he  should  be  willing 
to  communicate  with  those  churches  ;  but  he  cannot  lawfully 
subscribe  or  profess  the  creed  of  Pius  IV.  for  the  following 
reasons.  (1.)  This  creed  is  proposed  to  him  as  a  Aere^zc.  It 
is  designed  to  exact  from  him  the  condemnation  of  that  branch 
of  the  catholic  church  in  which  he  has  hitherto  lived,  and  such 
an  admission  and  condemnation  cannot  be  made  consistently 
with  truth.  Therefore  the  creed  of  Pius  is  to  be  firmly  re- 
jected. (2.)  The  Roman  church,  in  exacting  from  him  the 
profession  of  this  creed,  as  the  condition  of  communion  with 
her,  evidently  expects  that  the  particular  doctrines  therein  con- 
tained shall  be  professed  explicitly,  after  examination,  for 
otherwise  she  would  have  only  exacted  a  general  adhesion  to 
all  the  doctrines  of  the  Roman  church.  Now  it  is  impossible, 
consistently  with  a  due  regard  to  Christian  truth,  to  profess 
explicitly  all  points  of  this  creed,  especially  as  matters  of  faith, 
because  several  of  them  are  uncertain  and  erroneous,  and  dis- 
puted in  many  parts  of  the  Catholic  church.  The  same  objec- 
tions would  lie  against  any  similar  formulary  whatever. 
VOL.  I.— 38 


APPENDIX    I 


ON    JANSENISM. 


To  those  who  are  acquainted  with  the  history  of  the  Roman 
churches,  in  connexion  with  Jansenism,  few  things  can  appear 
more  absurd,  than  the  air  of  triumph,  with  which  modern  Romish 
theologians  vaunt  the  unity  of  their  church  in  faith,  its  sole  and 
exclusive  possession  of  authority  for  the  termination  of  religious 
controversies,  and  its  freedom  from  all  heresy.  According  to  Bou- 
■  vier,  now  bishop  of  Mans,  the  Roman  church  has  perfect  unity 
of  doctrine,  "  for  whosoever  denies  the  very  least  article  of  faith, 

.  is  ipso  facto  separated  from  her,  and  regarded  as  a  heretic  :  no 
opportunity  is  afforded  for  examination  or  disputation ;  learned  and 
unlearned  are  bound  to  submit  themselves  immediately,  heart  and 

'  soul,  to  the  same  definition  once  pronounced,  under  the  penalty  of 
anathema;  therefore  it  is  impossible  that  unity. of  faith  should  not 
be  preserved  among  them,"''  &c.  "When  debates  rise  among 
'  Catholics  '  concerning  points  of  faith,"  says  Milner,  "  the  pastors 
of  the  church  .  .  .  fail  not  to  examine  them  by  the  received  Rule 
of  Faith,  and  to  pronounce  an  authoritative  sentence  upon  them. 
The  dispute  is  thus  quashed,  and  peace  is  restored,"^  &,c.  "The 
church  never  changes  her  doctrine,  nor  suffers  any  persons  in  her 
communion  to  change  it,  or  to  question  any  part  of  it,^^''-  &c.  Tke 
dogmatical  tone  of  these  assertions  is  highly  imposing ;  but  it  is 

»  De  Vera  Ecclesia,  p.  145. 

b  End  of  Controversy,  p.  102. 

c  Ibid.  p.  147.  Dr.  Biiines  is  equally  positive  in  his  assurance  of  the 
unity  of  faith  in  the  Roman  communion.  "  The  doctrines  of  the  catholic 
religion  are  every  where  the  same.  Not  a  difference  will  be  found  on  any 
single  article  of  faith,  (sic)  amongst  all  its  countless  millions  "  ,  .  .  "  Unity 
like  this  is  indispensable  in  any  church  which  claims  to  teach  the  uniform 
and  unchangeable  doctrines  of  Christ.  Need  I  add,  that  you  will  in  vain 
seek  for  it  in  any  other  communion  or  sect." — Sermon  at  Bradford,  1825. 


APPEND.  I.]    VAUNTS  OF  ROMISH  THEOLOGIANS.        »   299 

not  sustained  by  facts.  The  truth  is,  that  no  branch  of  the  catholic 
church  has  been  more  divided  in  points  of  faith,  and  more  troubled, 
and  exposed  to  greater  perils  in  consequence,  than  the  Roman, 
during  the  last  two  hundred  years. 

I.  Romanists  commonly,  I  suppose,  regard  the  followers  of 
Jansenius  and  Quesnel  as  heretics.  Their  theologians,  Tournely, 
Delahogue,  Bailly,  &c.  &c.  have  clearly  shown  that  the  judgment 
of  the  whole  body  of  pastors  of  the  Roman  obedience,  has  been 
repeatedly  pronounced  in  condemnation  of  Jansenism.  Without 
speaking  of  the  censure  of  Jansenius' s  book,  entitled  Augustmus, 
by  Urban  VIII.  in  1641,  the  five  principal  tenets  of  Jansenism 
(which  amount  in  fact  to  the  doctrine  of  Calvin)  were  condemned 
by  a  bull  of  Innocent  X.  in  1653;  again  by  Alexander  VII.  in 
1656,  whose  subsequent  bull  of  1665  prescribed  a  formulary,  to 
be  signed  by  all  the  clergy,  receiving  the  above  bulls,  and  con- 
demning the  propositions  in  the  sense  of  Jansenius.  This  was 
followed,  in  1705,  by  the  bull  of  Clement  XI.  confirming  the 
former,  and  condemning  the  subterfuges  of  the  Jansenists.  In 
1713  the  bull  Vnigenitus  was  fulminated  by  Clement  XL  against 
the  doctrines  of  Quesnel,  a  Jansenist ;  this  was  confirmed  by  the 
bull  Pastoralis  Officii,  the  papal  Synod  of  Rome,  1725,  and  by 
other  bulls,  rescripts,  briefs,  &c.  of  succeeding  pontifis.  The 
Romish  theologians  prove  very  clearly,  that  these  various  bulls 
were  addressed  to  the  universal  church,  that  they  were  received 
by  the  infinite  majority  of  the  Roman  bishops,  that  in  consequence 
all  who  held  Jansenist  doctrines  were  heretics,  that  Jansenism  is 
in  fact  a  damnable  heresy,  &c.  < 

II.  Notwithstanding  all  this,  it  is  a  matter  of  absolute  certainty, 
that  this  very  Jansenist  heresy  has,  in  opposition  to  all  these  ana- 
themas and  condemnations,  and  in  spite  of  the  persecution  of  the 
temporal  powers,  continued  to  exist  for  nearly  two  hundred  years ; 
and  what  is  more,  that  it  has  existed  all  along  in  the  very  heart 
of  the  Roman  church  itself.  Yes,  it  has  perpetuated  itself  in  all 
parts  of  that  church,  sometimes  covertly,  sometimes  openly,  ex- 
citing uneasiness,  tumults,  innovations,  reforms,  persecutions, 
schisms,  but  always  adhering  to  the  Roman  communion  with  in- 
vincible tenacity.  It  is  in  vain  that,  sensible  of  so  great  an  evil, 
the  Roman  church  struggles  and  resorts  to  every  expedient  to  free 


300  JANSENISM.  [p.  I.  CH.  XI. 

herself  from  its  presence  :  the  loathed  and  abhorred  heresy  per- 
petuates itself  in  her  vitals,  and  infects  her  bishops,  her  priests, 
her  monks,  her  universities  ;  and  depressed  for  a  time  by  the  arm 
of  civil  power,  gains  the  ascendancy  at  length,  influences  the 
councils  of  kings,  overthrows  the  Jesuits,  produces  religious  inno- 
vations of  the  most  extraordinary  character,  and  inflicts  infinite  and 
permanent  injury  and  disgrace  on  the  cause  of  the  Roman  church. 
The  Jansenist  party  is  thus  described  by  the  historian  of  this 
church  in  the  eighteenth  century  :  "  Active,  intriguing,  obstinate, 
it  produced  a  crowd  of  writings  which  wounded  charity  and  per- 
petuated dissensions.  Condemned  by  the  body  of  pastors,  it  took 
shelter  in  the  arms  of  the  secular  power,  and  found  support  in  some 

of  its  branches The  continual  declamations  in  which  they 

indulged,  against  the  pope  and  the  bishops,  abased  the  ecclesiasti- 
cal power.  The  obstinacy  with  which  they  sustained  false  mira- 
cles, led  Deists  to  cast  doubts  even  on  those  which  support  Chris- 
tianity. This  party  offers  to  the  impartial  observer,  all  the  features 
of  a  real  sect  .  .  .  the  church  was  troubled  wherever  it  existed  ; 
she  was  only  tranquil  where  it  existed  not.  During  fifty  years  it 
rent  the  church  of  France,  producing  a  multitude  of  incidental  dis- 
putes, fomenting  deplorable  illusions,  exciting  a  spirit  of  opposition, 
of  mutiny,  and  slander  against  the  bishops.  From  France  this 
spirit  passed  to  other  countries  ;  and,  in  the  latter  half  of  the  eigh- 
teenth century,  Germany  and  Italy  saw  it  develop  itself  in  their 
bosom,  under  the  protection  of  some  deceived  princes,  or  some  se- 
duced ministers.  To  the  same  influence  must  be  attributed  the 
changes  introduced  into  the  schools  of  those  countries,  the  errors 
of  their  canonists,  the  reforms  attempted  at  Vienna,  Florence,  and 
Naples,  the  instruction  of  the  university  of  Pavia,  so  many  writings 
against  the  holy  see,  and  that  secret  but  active  conspiracy  to  eflect 
universal  alteration  in  the  church,  and  to  place  it  under  the  secular 
arm.''''^  Such  was  the  boasted  unity  of  the  Roman  church  during 
the  eighteenth  century  ! 


''  Memoires  pour  servir  a  I'histoire  Eccles.  xviii.  siecle.  Preface,  iv — 
vi.  This  work  is  commended  by  Cardinal  Pacca  in  his  Memoirs,  torn.  ii. 
p.  113. 


APPEND.  I.]      JANSENISTS  IN  THE  6ALLICAN  CHURCH.  301 

III.  I  proceed  to  verify  these  observations  by  facts,  and  to  show 
that  Jansenism  has  continued  always  to  exist  in  the  communion  of 
the  Roman  church. 

I  shall,  in  the  first  instance,  remark  its  condition  during  the 
seventeenth  century,  and  afterwards  proceed  to  trace  its  progress 
in  the  various  countries  of  Europe,  from  the  beginning  of  the  eigh- 
teenth century  to  the  present  age.  The  Jansenist  party  was  soon 
headed,  or  supported,  by  many  of  the  most  distinguished  men  in 
France,  as  Arnauld,  Nicole,  Pascal,  Launoy,  whose  writings,  even 
at  the  present  day,  are  cited  by  all  Romanists,  as  among  the  most 
learned  which  their  church  has  ever  produced.  The  strength  of 
their  party  was  shown  at  once,  by  the  letter  of  eleven  French 
bishops  to  Innocent  X.  in  1653,  imploring  him  not  to  condemn  the 
work  of  Jansenius.*^  The  divisions  were  not  terminated  even  by 
the  bull  of  Alexander  VII.  in  1665,  prescribing  the  signature  of 
the  Formulary  condemning  Jansenism.  M.  de  Gondrin,  Arch- 
bishop of  Sens,  subscribed,  but  his  friends  said  that  he  had  not 
changed  his  opinions.^  In  short,  many  of  those  who  subscribed 
were  of  opinion,  "  that  they  might  sign,  though  they  did  not  be- 
lieve internally  i]iQfact "  (that  Jansenius  had  taught  the  condemned 
propositions  ;)  Arnauld  says,  this  "  was  the  opinion  of  a  great 
number  of  persons  in  some  learned  communities."  ^  Others  signed 
with  various  restrictions  :  and  thus  the  party  continued  to  possess 
their  bishoprics  and  other  benefices  in  the  Gallican  church.  Four 
bishops  published  mandates,  in  which  they  only  required  a  respect- 
ful silence  as  to  the  question  of  the  fact,  adopting  thus  the  Jansen- 
ist distinction  ;  and  when  an  attempt  was  made  to  punish  them  by 
the  opposite  party,  nineteen  other  bishops,  headed  by  the  Arch- 
bishop of  Sens,  wrote  to  Clement  IX.  in  their  favour.^  This  again 
shows  the  strength  of  the  Jansenist  party  in  the  church.     The  re- 


e  Ibid.  p.  cclxv.  t  cclxxix. 

g  Ibid.     This  conduct  resembled  that  of  the  Arians,  Eusebius  of  Nicome- 

dia,  Theognis,   and  Maris,  at  the  Council  of  Nice,   and  their  successors, 

Clarke,  Sykes,  Hoadly,  &c.,  in  later  times,  who  subscribed  articles  which 

they  disbelieved,  and  were  not  ashamed  to  recommend  the  same  to  others^ 

''  cclxxxvii. 


302  JANSENISM.  [p.  I.  CH.  XI. 

suit  was,  that  the  four  Jansenist  bishops  were  allowed  to  subscribe 
a  formulary  in  such  a  manner,  "  that  they  and  their  partizans  did 
not  really  abandon  their  sentiments."  They  profited  by  the  oppor- 
tunity to  strengthen  their  party,  and  "  Port  Royal  became  the  place 
of  assembly  of  the  enemies  of  authority."'  Thus  Jansenism  still 
continued  in  the  Roman  church.  At  the  same  time  we  learn,  that 
Flanders  "  was  also  a  prey  to  the  new  opinionists."'*  The  very 
first  bull  against  the  book  of  Jansenius  had  encountered  opposition 
in  the  university  of  Louvain.'  Afterwards  Arnauld,  Nicole,  Ques- 
nel,  and  other  heads  of  the  Jansenists,  resided  in  Belgium,  and 
amongst  their  partizans  are  mentioned,  P.  Honore  de  S.  Marie, 
John  Opstraet,  and  "  many  others.""^  In  fine,  Dr.  Van  Espen, 
professor  of  canon  law  in  the  university  of  Louvain,  and  "  the  most 
learned  canonist  of  his  time,"  ..."  gave  himself  up  to  this  same 
party  of  which  we  have  been  speaking.  ...  In  general  this  writer 
is  little  favourable  to  the  Holy  See,  and  prone  to  exaggerate  the 
power  of  princes  in  the  church.  These  dispositions  increased 
with  his  devotion  for  the  cause  he  had  embraced.  He  always 
showed  himself  at  the  head  of  the  refractory  Flemings,  and  spent 
his  old  age  in  writing  in  their  favour.'"'  It  appears  from  this  that 
Jansenists  were  in  the  communion  of  the  church  in  Belgium.  The 
same  may  be  observed  of  Holland.  M.  de  Neercassel,  bishop  of 
Castoria  and  vicar  apostolic  in  Holland,  was  connected  with  some 
of  the  Jansenist  party,"  .  .  .  .  "  having  given  access  to  many  Jan- 
senists, he  permitted  them  to  exercise  influence  over  his  clergy, 
among  whom  they  contrived  to  make  partizans.  The  evil  appear- 
ed to  increase  under  M.  Codde  his  successor.""  M.  Codde  was 
accused  of  Jansenism,  suspended  and  deposed  by  the  pope,  but 
the  Jansenist  party  prevented  any  one  from  assuming  his  place.? 

IV.  I  now  proceed  to  the  progress  of  Jansenism  in  the  eigh- 
teenth century,  and  first,  in  France.  On  the  appearance  of  the 
bull  "  UnigenUus,"  in  1713,  six  of  the  French  bishops  did  not  pub- 
lish it,  as  was  required.  The  bishops  of  Metz  and  Sisteron,  and 
the  archbishop  of  Embrun,  published  explanatory   mandates  not 


i  ccxciv.  v.  '  ccxcv.  '  cclxiii.  cclxvii.  ">  cxliii. 

"  cxlvii.  cxlviii.  °  cl.  •'  cli.  clii.  cliii. 


APPEND.  I.]  THE  APPELLANTS.  303 

receiving  it  simply.     "  Fourteen  bishops  formally  opposed  the  bull. 
Three  or  four  pursued  a  middle  course. 'i     So  strong  was  the  Jan- 
senist  party  in  the  Gallican  church.     Cardinal  de  Noailles,  arch- 
bishop of  Paris,  was  now  at  the  head  of  the  Jansenists,""  and  con- 
tinued so  for  fifteen  years.     On  the  accession  of  the  regent  Or- 
leans, (1715,)  Noailles  came  into  power,  and  was  made  president 
of  a  council  for  ecclesiastical  affairs.     His  influence  made  itself 
felt,  and  "  the  dignities  of  the  church  even  became  the  recompense 
of  zeal  for  the  cardinal  and  his  adherents,"  i.  e.  the  Jansenists. 
"  The  abbes  de  Lorraine,  Bossuet,  d'Entraigues,  &c.,  were  nomi- 
nated to  bishoprics.'*'^     These  Jansenist  prelates,  after  much  oppo- 
sition, actually  obtained  their  bulls  and  became  bishops  of  the  Gal- 
lican church.*     In  1717,  the  bishops  of  Mirepoix,  Senez,  Mont- 
pelier,  and  Boulogne,  signed  an  appeal  from  the  constitution  "  Uni- 
genitus  "  to  a  general  council.     To  this  appeal  the  faculty  of  Theo- 
logy at  Paris  adhered."     They  were  followed  by  the  faculties  of 
arts  and  law  ;  by  rectors,  canons,  monks,  nuns,  laymen.     Noailles 
encouraged  these  proceedings  ;''  and  soon  after,  sixteen  bishops,  of 
whom  he  was  the  principal,  suspended  in  their  dioceses  the  effects 
of  the  bull.     They  were  supported  by  the  three  universities  of 
Paris,  Rheims,  and  Nantes,  and  by  some  tlioxisands  of  ecclesias- 
tics, and  many  laymen,'''  and  thus  the  Jansenist  party,  called  Ap- 
pellants (as  Appealing  from  the  bull  Unigenitus  to  a  general  coun- 
cil,) were  still  within  the  bosom  of  the  Roman  church,  and  con- 
tinued to  maintain  their  preferments  and  their  communion  with  the 
rest  of  their  church,  in  spite  of  the  anathemas  launched  against 
them.     I  shall  not  notice  all  the  minor  contests  and  controversies 
in  France,  which  were  perpetual,  and  prove  the  existence  of  this 
party ;   but  content  myself  with  a  few  facts  showing  its  existence 
in  the  communion  of  the  church.     In  1720,  seven  French  bishops 
wrote  to  Innocent  XIII.  against  his  predecessor  and  the  bull  Uni- 
genitus, "  a  judgment,"  they  said,  "  so  irregular  that  pagan  Rome 
itself  would  not  have  suflered  it.'"'     In  1726,  M.  Soanen,  bishop 
of  Senez,  was  an  appellant,  and  published  a  Jansenist  instruction, 


"1  Memoires,  torn.  i.p.  97.  '  100.  =  116.  '  149. 

u  124.  '  125.  "  126.  -  187. 


304  .,       JANSENISM.  [p.  I.  CH.  XI. 

which  brought  him  into  difficuhies.  He  used  to  ordain  the  Jan- 
senists  of  Holland. ^  In  1728,  a  number  of  Gallican  bishops  wrote 
to  the  Roman  pontiff'  to  complain  of  the  excesses  of  the  Jansenists 
"  The  spirit  of  criticism,"  they  said,  "  becomes  the  dominant  spirit. 
How  many  persons  erect  themselves  into  judges  of  what  they  do 
not  understand  !  There  is  a  party  in  open  revolt  against  the  church. 
It  gains  credit  every  day  ;  it  acquires  new  followers ;  it  receives 
with  avidity  and  scatters  with  profusion  ;  it  vaunts  to  excess  the 
numberless  books  which  are  written  to  authorize  it,  and  neglects 
nothinsf  to  strengthen  its  errors  and  its  disobedience."^  Neverthe- 
less  this  party  was  still  within  the  church  itself.  M.  Soanen  hav- 
ing been  suspended  by  the  provincial  synod  of  Embrun,  twelve 
bishops  interceded  again  and  again  for  him.  They  were,  like  him, 
opponents  of  the  buU.^"  M.  Soanen,  however,  though  a  Jansenist 
was  not  excommunicated,  but  remained  still  in  the  Roman  church. 
The  diocese  of  Paris  at  this  time  was  full  of  Jansenist  priests. ** 
In  1730,  the  king  issued  an  ordonnance  requiring  all  the  clergy  to 
subscribe  their  adherence  to  the  bull  on  pain  of  losing  their  bene- 
fices, but  the  parliament  of  Paris,  under  the  influence  of  the  Jan- 
senist party,  frustrated  its  execution,  and  maintained  them  in  pos- 
session of  their  benefices."  The  celebrated  Jansenist  journal, 
"  Les  Nouvelles  Ecclesiastiques,"  which  was  first  published  in 
1729,  and  continued  to  subsist  for  more  than  sixty  years, 'i  having 
been  condemned  by  the  archbishop  of  Paris,  1732,  twenty-two  of 
his  clergy  in  Paris,  who  were  appellants,  refused  to  publish  the 
condemnation,  and  many  of  the  people  retired  from  the  churches 
where  it  was  published. *=  Thus  Jansenism  was  still  within  the 
Roman  communion. 

The  parliaments  of  Paris,  Rouen,  Aix,  Toulouse,  &c.  were  jhe 
steady  friends  of  Jansenism  in.  France.  About  1749,  some  of  the 
clergy  having  refused  to  administer  the  sacrament  to  Jansenists  ; 
the  latter  appealed  to  the  civil  arm.  The  parliaments  punished 
with  fine,  imprisonment,  and  perpetual  exile  those  clergy  who  re- 
fused to  give  the  sacraments  to  Jansenists.^     The  king  in  vain  op- 


y  Tom.  ii.  p.  30.       ^  44.       ^  45.     b  .54,      c  74.        d  105.       «  109. 
f  220.  235.  253.  260.  354.     Se  also  De  Barral  (Archeveque  de  Tours), 
Defense  des  Libertes  do  I'Eglise  Gall.  p.  113. 


APP.  I.]         REFORMING  PRINCIPLES  OF  DE  HONTHEIM.  305 

posed  these  proceedings :  the  parliaments  ahnost  invariably  tri- 
umphed. In  1754,  and  the  following  years,  the  archbishops  of 
Paris  and  Aix,  the  bishops  of  Orleans,  Troyes,  S.  Pons,  and  many 
other  bishops,  were  exiled,  condemned,  their  goods  seized,  &c. 
by  order  of  the  parliaments,  in  consequence  of  their  opposition  to 
Jansenism.^  The  parliament  of  Paris  "  held  the  faculty  of  theo- 
logy under  its  yoke  for  many  years."^  The  Jansenists  inflamed 
the  public  mind  against  the  Jesuits  in  1760,  and  under  their  influ- 
ence the  parliaments  suppressed  that  order.'  In  1765,  the  faculty 
of  law  at  Paris  was  still  appellant  against  the  bull  ]^  and  the  par- 
liament continued  long  afterwards  to  punish  any  of  the  clergy  who 
refused  communion  to  the  Jansenists. ^  In  1780,  the  works  of 
Bossuet  were  published  with  Jansenist  annotations  by  Deforis,  a 
monk  of  the  Benedictine  monastery  of  Blancs-Manteaux,  at  Paris, 
"  well  known  for  its  attachment  to  the  tenacious  party,'""  &c. 
Therefore  it  is  clear,  that  for  the  greater  part  of  this  century  at 
least,  in  fact  while  Christianity  subsisted  in  France,  so  long  did 
Jansenism  firmly  adhere  to  the  Roman  communion,  in  spite  of  all 
efforts  to  expel  it.  But  it  is  time  to  consider  the  state  of  other 
parts  of  their  church. 

V.  Germany.  The  reforming  spirit  prevalent  in  Germany  from 
the  middle  of  the  eighteenth  century,  is  connected  with  the  influ- 
ence of  Jansenism  by  the  Romish  historian  of  the  period.  (See 
above,  p.  300.)  In  1720,  the  Jansenists  had  adherents  at  Vienna." 
The  work  of  M.  de  Hontheira,  bishop  of  Myriophita  and  suflfragan 
of  Treves,  which  was  entitled  "  Justini  Febronii  de  statu  praesenti 
Ecclesiae,  liber,"  and  published  1763,  produced  an  extraordinary 
effect  in  Germany.  "  Already  for  many  years  Vienna  had  been 
full  of  reforming  theologians,  who  took  the  trouble  to  reconstruct 
the  instruction  of  the  church.  M.  de  Hontheim  completed  their 
work,  and  a  sort  of  revolution  took  place  in  the  public  mind."° 
Febronius  is  said  to  have  been  "  entirely  conformable  to  the  no- 
tions of  the  new  canonists,  who  undertake  to  dispose  of  the  gov- 
ernment of  the  church,   to   destroy  the  legitimate  authority  of  the 

g  Mem.  288—293.  329.         >■  329       '  387.  389.       "^  474.      '  508. 
"  III.  18.  °  Tom.  i.  p.  187.  °  II.  650. 

VOL.  I. — 39 


306  .  '       JANSENISM.  [p.  I.  CH.  XI. 

holy  see,  and  to  renew  all  the  maxims  of  the  Protestants  against 
the  ecclesiastical  power."?  The  system  of  instruction  at  Vienna 
is  said  to  have  been  *'  more  in  accordance  with  the  notions  of  some 
innovators,  than  with  the  ancient  and  common  doctrine.  Men  who 
had  studied  Fra  Paola  and  Van  Espen "  (a  Jansenist  writer), 
"  and  others  of  this  stamp,  more  than  the  books  and  principles  au- 
thorized in  the  church,  devoted  themselves  to  propagate  the  les- 
sons of  their  masters ;  and  pretended  in  adopting  them,  to  revive 

the  best  days  of  Christianity The   church,   according  to 

them,  was  in  a  state  of  desolation  and  ruin,  its  government  was 
vicious,  its  laws  tyrannical,  its  usages  superstitious,  its  discipline 
full  of  abuse,  its  doctrine  even  disfigured."  They  despoiled  the 
Roman  see  of  all  its  rights.  "  They  reduced  to  noildng  this  prin- 
cipal chair  .  .  .  this  centre  of  unity,  to  which  it  is  necessary  to 
remain  attached,  to  be  reputed  catholic,"  &c.  "  De  Hontheim, 
one  of  the  most  celebrated  partizans  of  this  system,  saw  noth- 
ing in  the  church  but  a  sort  of  republic,  in  which  the  pope 
could  not,  without  usurpation,  have  arrogated  the  powers  he  en- 
joyed. Authority  he  held  to  belong  to  the  entire  body  of  the 
church,  which  committed  its  exercise  to  the  pastors.  He  allowed 
scarcely  more  privileges  to  the  successor  of  St.  Peter,  than  to 
other  bishops ;  contested  the  right  of  the  church  to  condemn 
books ;  and  reduced  her  to  be,  even  in  that  which  properly  con- 
cerns her,  the  slave  of  the  civil  pou-er"i  &c.  Such  were  the 
tenets,  heretical  in  the  opinion  of  Romanists  generally,  which  ex- 
isted in  the  bosom  of  their  church  in  Germany ;  and  which,  not- 
withstanding the  condemnation  of  Febronius  by  Clement  XIII.  in 
1764,  gained  ground,  and  prevailed,  and  have  continued  to  be  held 
in  that  church  to  the  present  day.  Such  is  the  absolute  unity  of 
the  Roman  church  in  faith  ! 

But  we  shall  presently  see  Jansenism  appear  more  openly  on 
the  stage.  Even  during  the  lifetime  of  Maria  Teresa,  the  future 
emperor,  Joseph,  "  gave  the  signal  for  innovations.  The  profes- 
sors of  theology  were  changed,  in  many  places,  to  substitute  others 


p  454.     See  Biographie  Universelle,  art.  Hontheim. 
q  453—457. 


APPEND.  I.]  PROCEEDING  OF  JOSEPH  11.  307 

who  had  contrary  ideas.  They  went  so  far  as  to  deprive  the  bish- 
ops of  the  direction  of  their  seminaries,  and  of  the  choice  of  theo- 
logians to  teach  there."  On  the  accession  of  Joseph  (1781),  a 
multiplicity  of  laws,  on  ecclesiastical  matters,  were  published. 
"  The  religious  orders  were  forbidden  to  obey  foreign  superiors  i 
many  convents  were  suppressed  ;  they  were  prohibited  from  re- 
ceiving novices.  The  protestants  were  favoured ;  the  clergy 
required  to  give  an  account  of  their  revenues.  It  was  no  longer 
permitted  to  have  recourse  to  Rome  for  dispensations  of  marriage. 
The  imperial  placet  was  prescribed  for  all  bulls,  briefs,  or  rescripts 
from  Rome.  The  bishops  were  forbidden  to  confer  orders  for 
some  time.  In  fine,  there  was  an  uninterrupted  series  of  regula- 
tions, which  changed  all  usages  and  subverted  discipline.  The 
attention  of  the  reformer  extended  to  the  most  minute  objects.  He 
suppressed  confraternities,  abolished  processions,  retrenched  holy 
days,  prescribed  the  order  of  the  offices,  regulated  ceremonies,  the 
number  of  masses,  the  manner  of  saying  the  saluts,  even  the  quantity 
of  wax-lights  to  be  used  in  the  service."'  This  reforming  emperor 
was  all  the  time  in  the  communion  of  the  Roman  church,  which 
was  obliged  to  submit  to  all  his  regulations.  So  secure  are  the  mem- 
bers of  that  communion  against  innovations  in  doctrine  and  dis- 
cipline ! 

But  to  proceed  :  Joseph,  it  seems,  ''left  the  bishops  nothing  more 
to  do,  seized  their  revenues,  excluded  them  from  the  states  of  their 
province,  and  destroyed  their  sees^^  The  superiors  of  the  semina- 
ry of  Brunn,  lately  appointed  by  his  choice,  "  were  accused  of  fol- 
lowing the  same  principles  as  the  appellants  (Jansenists),  of  dis- 
seminating their  books,  and  of  seeking  to  introduce  into  Germany, 
the  quarrels  and  dissensions  which  had  so  much  agitated  other 
countries."  .  .  .  .  "  Many  bishops  denounced  the  new  professors. 
Joseph  took  cognizance  of  this  question"  of  doctrine,  "declared 
the  three  professors  absolved,  deprived  their  accuser  of  his  place  of 
archdeacon  of  Olmutz,  ....  blamed  strongly  those  ecclesiastics 


r  III.  20,  21.: 
8  22.     He  v/ent  so  far  as  to  issue  a  decree  "qui  obligeoit  tous  les  eveques 
des  Etats  hereditaires  a  promettre  d'obeir  a  tous  les  ordres  qui  etoient  deja 
emanes  de  I'empereur,  ou  qui  powroient  en  emaner  par  la  suite  ! .'" — Me- 
moires  sur  Pie  VI.  et  son  Pontificat,  tome  i.  p.  236. 


308  JANSENISM.  [p.  I.  CH.  XI. 

who  had  dared  to  sustain  the  constitidion  Unigenitus,  interdicted 
the  pvljyit  forever,  and  in  all  j)laces,  to  those  preachers  who  had 
spoken  against  the  accused;  declared  that  the  bulls  Unigenitus  and 
In  Ccsna  Domini,  having  never  yet  been,  nor  hereafter  to  be  received, 
should  be  removed  from  all  the  liturgical  books  ichere  they  were 
found,"  Sic.     In  fine,  he  commanded  the  seminary  of  Vienna,  for 
the  education  of  the  clergy,  to  be  given  to  one  of  the  accused.*^     In 
short,  Jansenism  was  triumphant.     Presently  "  a  new  decree  or- 
dered an    absolute  silence  on  the   constitution  Unigenitus ;"  but, 
nevertheless,  the  court  theologians  were  'permitted  to  declaim  against 
it,  and  to  spread  books  in  favour  of  the   appeal."     It  was  in  vain 
that  several  prelates,  aided  by  the  papal  nuncio,  remonstrated  with 
the  emperor,    and  represented  that  the  bull  "  Unigenitus  "    was  a 
judgment  of  the  universal  church.     It  was   in  vain  that   Pius  VI. 
himself  took  the  unprecedented  step  of  going  to  Vienna,  to  obtain 
the  cessation  of  these  obnoxious  proceedings.     He  obtained  only 
some  trifling  modifications,  and  had  the  mortification  to  learn,  on 
his  return  to  Rome,  that  Joseph  had  issued  an  edict,  assuming  the 
patronage  of  all  tha  sees  of  Lombardy,  which  had  hitherto  belonged 
to  the  Roman  see.     Presently  he  made  a  new  circumscription  of 
all  the  bishoprics  of  his  states.     He  even  issued  a   decree    "/o 
remox>e  images  from  the  churches.''^     This  was  of  course  heretical 
in  the  judgment  of  Romanists,  and  directly  contrary  to  the  decrees 
of  the  Synods  of  Nice  and  Trent,  which  they  regard  as  oecumeni- 
cal.   Nevertheless,  this  heresy  was  openly  avowed  and  acted  on  by 
Joseph  without  any  censure,  and  in  the  bosom  of  their  church.     He 
next    "  suppressed  some   impediments  to    marriage,    established 
others,  and  'permitted  divorce  in  certain  cases."     This  again  was 
contrary  to  the  discipline  of  the  Roman  church.     The  archbishop 
of  Goritz  having  opposed  these  innovations,   the   emperor   "  swp- 
pressed  his  see,  commanded  him  to  send  in  his  resignation,  and  on 


t  Mem.  Eccl.  ibid. 

"  lb.  23.  This  imperial  constitution,  commanding  silence  concerning  the 
bull  Unigenitus,  was  still  in  force  in  the  Austrian  empire  in  1809. — See 
Rechberger,  Enchiridion  Jur.  Eccl.  Austriaci,  cited  in  "  Report  of  Com- 
mittee on  Roman  Catholic  subjects  in  foreign  countries"  (1816),  p.  112. 


APPEND.  I.]      JANSENISM  AND  REFORM  IN  GERMANY.  309 

his  refusal  ordered  him  to  set  off  for  Ronie."^  "  He  reserved  the 
dignities  of  the  church  for  the  admirers  of  his  system  ;  he  engaged 
writers  to  undertake  its  defence.  He  protected,  at  Pavia,  a  society 
of  theologians  who,  like  Ricci  at  Pistoia,  sought  to  lower  the 
holy  see,  and  to  reform  the  system  of  instruction,  revived  the 
writings  of  the  French  appellants  (i.  e.  Jansenists),  cried  up  their 
doctrine,  and  formed  a  spirit  of  opposition,  complaint,  and  declama- 
tion, the  effect  of  which  was  to  trouble,  to  weaken  and  to  enslave 
the  church.  Pius  VI.  complained  more  than  once  of  the  imprudent 
protection  which  was  given  to  these  ardent  and  restless  theologi- 
ans.    No  regard  was  paid  to  his  complaints.""^ 

Thus  we  see  the  Jansenist  heresy,  a  hundred  and  thirty  years 
after  its  condemnation,  existing  in  the  bosom  of  the  German  and 
Italian  churches,  and  propagating  itself  every  where  openly,  under 
the  protection  of  the  state.     Such  is  the  freedom  of  the  Roman 
church  from  heresy  !    Such  the  infallible  certainty  with  which  all 
controversies  are  immediately  terminated  among  them  !    And  such 
their  independence  of  the  civil  power  !    The  new  system  advanced 
in  Germany.     The  archbishop   elector  of  Saltzburg,  in  1782,  had 
published  a  Pastoral  Instruction   "  against  the  luxury  of  churches, 
against  images,  ....  pretended  that  the  worship  of  saints  is  not  an 
essential   point   of  religion,"'''    &c.     These    doctrines,  accounted 
heretical  by  Romanists,  were  thus  avowed  in  their  own  communion ; 
and,  in  1785,  the  same  archbishop  and  elector,  with  his  brethren 
of  Cologne,  Treves,  and  Mayence,  agreed  to  a  model  of  ecclesias- 
tical reform,  drawn  up  by  their  vicars  at  Ems,  which  was  in  many 
respects  remarkable.     It   declared,  that  "  the  bishops  having  an 
unlimited  power  of  binding  and  loosing,  no  recourse  should  be  had 
to  Rome,   passing  over  the  immediate  prelates.     The  exemptions 
of  the  religious  orders  were  annulled ;  they  were  no  longer  to  de- 
pend on  foreign  superiors.     Every  bishop  was  to  dispense,  even  in 

"  The  memoirs  of  Pope  Pius  VI.  add  the  sequel.  He  was  compelled  to 
take  an  oath  of  obedience  to  the  emperor's  orders,  to  confess  that  he  had 
grossly  disobeyed  those  orders,  and  to  throw  himself  on  his  clemency.  In 
fine,  he  was  ordered  to  go  to  his  diocese,  and  put  the  royal  edicts  in  execu- 
tion.—Mem.  de  Pie  VI.  i.  262. 

'^  Mem.  Eccl.iii.  36,37.  x  61. 


310  '   -  JANSENISM.  [p.  I.  CH.  XI. 

cases  reserved  to  the  pope,  to  absolve  the  religious  from  their  vows. 
Papal  bulls  to  be  of  no  obligation,,  unless  received  by  the  bishop, 
&c.  They  decided  on  abolishing  the  oath  of  bishops  to  the  pope." 
If  the  pope  "  refused  to  confirm  the  bishops,  they  would  find  in  the 
ancient  discipline  means  to  preserve  their  office,  under  the  protec- 
tion of  the  emperor."  This  plan  was  objected  to  by  several  of  the 
German  bishops,  but  the  four  archbishops  proceeded  to  put  its  re- 
gulations in  force  in  their  dioceses. ^  The  pope  remonstrated  in 
vain.  Eybel,  professor  of  canon  law  at  Vienna,  having  publisihed 
books  against  auricular  confession,  and  against  the  papal  power, 
his  writings  were  condemned  by  Pius  VI.  in  1784  and  1786,  as 
containing  heresies  ;  but  the  emperor  ordered  the  suppression  of 
the  papal  decree,  and  Eybel,  although  a  heretic,  remained  in  com- 
munion with  the  Roman  church.^  The  principles  laid  down  at 
this  time  have  ever  since  prevailed  more  and  more  in  Germany. 
Similar  proceedings  in  favour  of  Jansenism  took  place  in  Belgium 
under  Joseph  II.,  who  in  1781  commenced  a  series  of  ecclesiasti- 
cal reforms  in  this  part  of  his  dominions.^  The  privileges  of  the 
faculty  of  theology  in  the  university  of  Louvain  were  suppressed, 
in  order  to  introduce  into  it  "  sentiments  more  conformable  with  the 
views  of  the  prince."  "  The  signature  to  the  formulary  and  the 
hull  '  Unigenitus,'  were  abolished ;"  ^>  and  thus  Jansenism  was  suf- 
fered to  intrude.  General  seminaries  for  the  clergy  were  estab- 
lished to  promote  the  spread  of  the  new  opinions  ;  and  directors  of 
the  four  faculties  of  Louvain  were  sent  from  Vienna,  one  of  whom 
"  had  been  expelled  from  Vienna  for  his  heterodoxy."  He  was 
made  "president  of  the  general  seminary"  for  the  clergy. •=  The 
Belgians,  however,  were  so  angry  at  these  proceedings  that  Jan- 
senism could  not  gain  a  firm  footing  there. 

VI.  Italy.  Jansenism  and  reform  went  hand  in  hand  through 
Italy  during  the  latter  half  of  the  eighteenth  century.  The  '  Ex- 
position of  Christian  Doctrine '  by  Mesengui,  in  which,  "  under 
the  name  of  Christian  doctrine,  the  dogmas  of  a  party  (Jansenism) 
were  frequently  taught,  and  in  which  the  condemned  propositions 


y  60—65.  '  81—87.  ^  75.  "  76.  ^  76—77. 


APPEND.  I.]         RELIGIOUS  INNOVATION  IN  ITALY.  311 

were  renewed,"  had  been  censured  in  1757  by  Benedict  XIV. 
Clement  XIII.  published  a  brief  against  it  in  1761.  "At  this 
time  the  disturbers  of  the  church  began  to  make  partizans  in  Italy. 
They  brought  into  vogue  an  extraordinary  and  novel  system  of  in- 
struction. Hatred  of  the  holy  see,  and  change  of  all  the  ecclesi- 
astical discipline  formed  its  basis.  It  was  but  an  emanation  from 
the  doctrine  of  the  French  appellants,  who  were  from  that  time 
closely  connected  with  the  innovators  of  Italy.  Both  spoke  only 
of  abuses,  reforms,  exclaimed  against  the  despotism  of  the  pope 
and  bishops,  and  wished  to  introduce  into  the  church  a  system 
more  to  their  taste.  The  kingdom  of  Naples  especially  was  full 
of  these  reforming  theologians  ....  The  minister  Tanucci  was 
little  favourable  to  the  church  of  Rome.  Serrao  preached  there 
the  doctrine  of  the  appellants."  He  afterwards  wrote  in  praise 
of  the  Exposition  of  Mesengui.<^  Thus  we  see  Jansenism  openly 
taught  in  the  Italian  church.  .  • 

In  Naples,  the  minister.  Marquis  Tanucci,  in  1776  suppressed 
seventy-eight  monasteries  of  Sicily  at  once,  united  some  bishoprics, 
and  gave  abbeys  without  the  pope's  consent.^  Serrao,  the  Jan- 
senist  before  mentioned,  was  named  by  the  king  bishop  of  Potenza, 
and  notwithstanding  the  jealousy  of  the  pope,  succeeded  by  arti- 
fices, and  the  royal  support,  in  actually  obtaining  that  see.^  It  is 
needless  to  enter  in  detail  on  the  various  reforms  effected  at  Naples 
in  imitation  of  the  emperor  Joseph.  It  may  be  observed  that 
Cortez,  bishop  of  Motula,  who  was  at  the  head  of  a  royal  Com- 
mission for  hearing  an  appeal  in  a  cause  of  marriage  which  ought, 
according  to  the  former  system,  to  have  gone  before  the  Roman 
see,  "  renounced  the  ordinary  formulary  by  which  bishops  are 
accustomed  to  begin  their  ordonnances,  '  bishop  by  the  grace  of 
the  holy  apostolic  see.'  M.  Cortez  had  in  fact  suppressed  this 
formula  in  imitation  of  some  old  French  prelates  favourable  to  the 
appeaire  Jansenism  and  reform  had  partizans,  it  seems,  in  the 
Neapolitan  church  as  well  as  elsewhere. 

In  Tuscany,  Jansenism  was  equally  troublesome.     The  arch- 


d  Tom.  II.  p.  403,  404.  «  III.  115.  f  117. 

6  120,  121.     Instead  of  this  he  took  the  title  of  "bishop  by  the  grace 


of  the  king.'' 


312  JANSENISM.  [p.  1.  CH.  XI. 

duke  Leopold  "  followed  blindly  the  councils  of  Scipio  Ricci,  who 
was  made,  in  1780,  bishop  of  Pistoia  and  Prato."  Ricci  "  resolved 
to  introduce  into  Italy  the  opinions  to  which  France  owed  a  cen- 
tury of  disputes."  By  his  council  the  prince  issued  frequent  and 
prolix  circulars,  sent  "  catechisms  to'  the  bishops,  directed  the 
books  which  they  should  place  in  the  hands  of  the  faithful,  abol- 
ished confraternities,  diminished  processions,  regulated  divine 
worship  and  ceremonies,"  &c.  Ricci  filled  his  diocese  "  with  men 
subservient  to  his  notions,  whom  he  invited  from  all  parts.  He 
caused  ecclesiastical  academies  to  be  established,  where  the  new 
theology  was  taught.  He  wrote  against  devotion  to  the  heart  of 
Jesus,  against  indulgences,  which  he  reduced  to  be  nothing  but  the 
relaxation  of  the  canonical  penance  formerly  imposed  for  sins.^^ 
He  changed  rites,  reformed  discipline,  overthrew  the  system  of 
instruction,  &c.  A  faithful  imitator  of  the  appellants  of  France, 
he  proposed  them  as  his  models.  Under  his  pen  Soanen  became 
*  a  holy  bishop,'  Quesnel  '  a  learned  and  pious  martyr  of  the  truth,' 
other  Jansenists  '  lights  of  the  church.'  He  caused  their  writings 
to  be  translated  into  Italian."  Pius  VI.  remonstrated  in  vain  against 
all  this.' 

In  1786,  a  royal  edict  was  published,  "  in  which  nothing  was 
forgotten  concerning  discipline,  instruction,  worship,  ceremonies, 
&c.  The  smallest  articles  were  entered  into  with  the  most  minute 
exactness."''  Ricci  soon  after  held  a  synod  at  Pistoia  to  effect 
reforms.  "  He  invited  from  Pavia,  that  school  then  fertile  in 
friends  of  the  new  theology,  professor  Tamburini,"  and  others  of 
the  same  party,  viz.  "  Vecchi,  Guarisci,  Monti,  Bottieri,  and  Pal- 
mieri."  In  the  first  session  234  priests  were  present.  They 
decreed  that  "  in  the  latter  ages  a  general  obscurity  has  overspread 
the  most  important  truths  of  religion,  which  are  the  bases  of  Chris- 
tian faith  and  morality." ^  They  afterwards  adopted  all  the  doc- 
fa  This  doctrine,  which  was  maintained  by  Luther,  and  for  which  he  was 
condemned,  was  also  maintained  by  Mr.  Charles  Butler,  an  English  Ro- 
manist in  the  latter  part  of  the  eighteenth  century. — See  "  Catholic  MisCel- 
lany,"  vol.  i.  for  1822,  p.  585.  Butler  has  been  charged  with  Jansenism 
by  Plowden,  another  Romanist. 

i  Mem.  Eccl.  IIL  1—4.  "69.  '71. 


APPEND.  I.]  JANSENISM  IN  PORTUGAL.  3,1^: 

trines  of  Baius  and  Quesnel,  and  all  tjie  Jansenists."^     They  made 
a  decree  in  which  "  they  rejected  the  devotion  of  the  heart  of 
Jesus,  imager,  and  other  pious  practices.""     The  bishops  of  CoUe 
and  Arezzo  held  their  synods  after  the  example  of  Ricci."     In 
1788,  Leopold  "  abolished  all  the  authority  of  the  papal  nuncios, 
forbad  all  appeal^  to  the  holy  see,  and  marked  himself  the  tribunals 
to  which  ecclesiastical  causes  should  be  carried."  p     It  was  not  till 
1794  that  Pius  VI.  condemned  the  synod  of  Pistoia  as  heretical  : 
but  there  was  still  a'  Jansenist  party  in  the  Italian  church.     "  Two 
bishops  of  Tuscany,  showed  themselves  unfavourable  to  the  bull." 
•Solari,  bishop  of  Noli,  in  the  state  of  Genoa,  "offered  a  public 
and  formal  opposition  to  the  bull,  and  wrote  against  it."i     Another 
Italian  author  is  mentioned,  who  supported  this  bishop  by  writings 
"  in  which  he  showed  himself  a  faithful  copyist  and  admirer  of 
the  French  appellants,"''  &c.     We  are  probably  to  attribute  to  the 
secret  influence  of  Jansenism,  the  ecclesiastical  edicts  of  the  duke 
of  Parma,  in  1764 — 7  ;  which  established  "  regulations  conform- 
able to  the  system  which  began  to  prevail,  to  restrain  more  and 
more  the  authority  of  the  holy  see,  and  to  enervate  the  ecclesias- 
tical power,"^   &c.     Italy   has  continued  ever   since   under  the 
influence  of  these  reforming  principles,  and  the  civil  magistrate 
lords  it  over   every  part  of  the  Italian  church  with  perfect  and 
absolute  power. 

VII.  Even  Portugal  was  not  exempt  from  the  novel  opinions. 
The  ministry  of  the  marquis  of  Pombal  was  distinguished  in  this 
respect.  "  He  was  seen  to  introduce  even  into  the  church  his  re- 
forming views,  to  change,  destroy,  enslave  the  bishops  to  his  will, 
to  declare  himself  an  enemy  of  the  holy  see,  to  protect  authors 
and  books  which  preached  novelties,  to  form  in  Portugal  a  system 
of  theological  instruction  altogether  different  from  that  which  had 
been  previously  followed,  and  in  fine  to  open  the  door  to  systems 
and  illusions  of  evil  doctrines,  in  a  country  hitherto  peaceable  and 
religious."^  The  bishop  of  Coimbra  having  issued  (1768)  a  man- 
date against  the  perusal  of  evil  books,  which  were  circulated  under 


71, 72.  "  73.  "  74.  p  107.  i  2G9.  ^  270 

»  Tom.  ii.  p.  530.  '  367. 

VOL.  I.— 40  % 


314  JANSENISM.  [p.  I.  CH.  XI, 

the  protection  of  some  government  agents,  was  imprisoned,  and  the 
chapter  of  Coimbra  was  obliged  by  the  king  to  appoint  an  adminis- 
trator of  the  see."  Among  the  books  circulated  were  Febronius 
(which  was  reprinted  in  Portugal),  and  Du  Pin's  writings,  which 
sufficiently  shows  that  reform  and  Jansenism  had  partizans  in  Por- 
tugal also. 

VIII.  The  Jansenists  of  Holland  alone  seem  to  be  out  of  the 
communion  of  the  Roman  church,  but  they  exhibit  every  wish  to 
be  connected  with  it,  and  profess  themselves  some  of  its  best  mem- 
bers.    In  1723,  the  Jansenist  clergy  of  Holland,  having  been  for 
some   time    without  any  bishop,  since  the   death  of  M.  Codde  in 
1710,   elected    Steenoven    archbishop  of  Utrecht.     This  see  it  is 
true  had  long  been  extinct,  but  they  were  encouraged  to  restore  it 
by  the  advice  of  "  many  doctors  of  the   Sorbonne,"   and  by  Van 
Espen  and  other  doctors  of  Louvain.^     They  were  supported  by 
some  Gallican  bishops.'^''     Varlet,  suffragan  bishop  of  Babylon  hav- 
ing fallen  under  the  suspicion  of  Jansenism,  was  obliged  to  return 
to  Europe,  and  resided  at  Amsterdam,  where  he  consecrated  Stee- 
noven in  1724,  assisted  only  by  two  canons ;  "  which  is  contrary  ta 
the  discipline  observed  in  the  church,  and  which  is  not  permitted 
except  with  dispensations,  that  were  not  asked."''     Varlet  ordained 
successively  four  archbishops  of  Utrecht.     Among  the  successors 
of  Steenoven  are  mentioned  Barchman  1725, >'  Vandercroon  1734,^ 
Meindartz  1739,='-   (under   whom  a   Jansenist  synod  was  held  at 
Utrecht  in  1763,  at  which  their  bishops  of  Utrecht,  Haarlem,  and 
Deventer  were  present,)''  Van  Nieuen-huysen  who  died  in  1797, 
Van  Rhyn  elected  the   same   year,"  Van  Os   consecrated  1814."^ 
These  Jansenist  bishops  have  continued  to  the  present  age,  assisted 
by  fifty   or  sixty  priests  and    a  few  thousand  followers.     They 
always  pretend  to  be  united  with  the  Roman  church,  duly  inform- 
ing the  pontiff  of  their  elections,  &c.  in  a  most  fraternal  manner, 
and  occasionally  addressing  epistles  to  him,"  to  all  which  they  re- 
ceive no  other  reply  than   bulls  of  excommunication,  deposition, 
censure,  &c.  which  they  do  not  seem  much  to  regard. 

.  545,  546.      V  Tom.  i.  p.  197.      <v  198.      .  200.      y  Tom.  ii.  p.  8. 
'  137.       "  166      *>  440.      '  III.  408—9.      <"  629.      «  II.  506. 


APPEND.   I.]  ENGLISH    JANSENISTS.  315 

IX.  The   Romanists  of  the  British   Empire  have  been  by  no 
means   exempt   from   Jansenism.      Without   speaking   of    certain 
priests   in  England  about  1707,  who  instructed  their   converts  to 
speak  irreverently  of  the  pope,  of  the  invocation  of  saints,  and  of 
indulgences,   and  kept  in  their   oratories   the  portraits  of  Arnauld 
and  St.  Cyran  (noted  Jansenists)  ;    or  of  the  Jansenistical  books 
then   translated   from  the  French ;  or  of  a  priest  in  Durham  who 
taught  his  scholars  to  read  '•  the  Provincial  Letters,  &c.  ;"f  with- 
out dwelling  on  these  and  other  facts,  which   might  be  adduced  to 
show  the  existence  of  Jansenism  among  the  Romanists  of  these 
countries,  in  the  earlier  part  of  the  last  century;  it  is  pretty  clear 
that  towards  the  latter  part  of  that   century,  and  in   the  present, 
Jansenism   has   lurked   in  the  Romish   communion.     Berrington, 
Charles  Butler  (the   chief  popish  writer  for  a  long  time).  Sir  J. 
Throckmorton,   Dr.  Charles  0' Conor,  their  most   learned  author, 
and  many  others,  have  been  openly  charged  with  Jansenism  by 
other  papists,  and  with  very  great  probability.     Mr.  Plowden,  a 
papist  of  considerable  note,  cites  from   Berrington's    Memoirs   of 
Panzani  (published  1793,)  passages  which  evince  an  evident  par- 
tiality for  Jansenism.^     He  also  shows  the  same  tendency  in   Dr. 
O'Conor,  the  author  of  the  Letters  of  Columbanus,  and  in  Mr.  C. 
Butler.     The  latter,  it  will  be  remembered,  held  the  same  doctrine 
on  indulgences  as  that  of  Scipio  de  Ricci,  the  Jansenist  bishop  of 
Pistoia,  for  which  he  was  vehemently  assailed  by  the  priest  Mil- 
ner.     His  writings  entitled  the  "  Blue  Books  "  gave  vast  offence 
to   the  strict  papists,  from  their   depreciation  of  papal   authority ; 
and  Sir  J.  Throckmorton  is  said  by  the  Romish  historian  of  the 
last  century  to  have  published  a  "  Letter  to  the  Catholic  Clergy 
on  the  Nomination  of  Bishops,  1792,"  in  which  "  he  showed  him- 
self little  favourable  to  the  holy  see,  whose  prerogatives  and  rights 
he  attacked,  and  he  spoke  on  this  subject  like  the  constitutionalists 
of  France."     These  sentiments  are  easily  connected  with  Jansen- 
ism :  and  Mr.  Plowden,  in  1812,  gave  a  striking  account  of  the  con- 
tinued existence  and  prevalence  of  this  condemned  heresy  amongst 
the  Romanists   of  these   countries.     The  genuine   feeling  which 


Plowden's  Historical  Letter,  p.  278.     Dublin,  1812.        «  Ibid. 


316  JANSENISM.  [p.  I.  CH.  XI. 

appears  in  his  observations,  precludes  all  possibility  of  doubt  as 
to  the  sincerity  of  his  belief  in  the  fact :  while  his  means  of  in- 
formation leave  nothing  to  be  desired. 

"  When,''  he  says,  "  a  tenacious  uniformity  in  strong  error  per- 
vades individuals  through  a  course  of  two  centuries,  it  is  evident, 
that  the  common  tie  of  such  erroneous  opinion  is  systematic  ;  and 
unless,  therefore,  the  whole  system  be  rooted  up,  the  refutation, 
condemnation,  or  even  punishment  of  the  single  error  ....  will 
only  increase  the  contumacy,   sharpen  the  zeal,  and  multiply  the 

artifices  of  the  leading  members  of  the    system The   direct 

opposition  to  God's  revealed  truth,  is  resistance  to  the  authority  he 
has  commissioned  to  teach  it.  To  this  is  traceable  that  prominent 
feature  of  Jansenism,  contemptuous  hostility  to  the  Council  of  Trent. 
Abbe  S.  Cyran,  the  founder  of  that  subtle  and  pernicious  sect  in 
France,  held  it  to  be  only  a  political  convention,  and  in  no  shape  a 
true  council ;  a  mere  assemblage  of  some  school  divines  by  the 
pope,  where  there  was  nothing  but  intrigue  and  cabal.  The  mani- 
festation of  this  symptom  proves  the  prevalence  of  the  disorder  at 
this  hour.^  Would  to  God,  the  remedy  were  as  obvious,  as  the  dis- 
ease is  evident  !  No  man  professes  himself  a  Jansenist.  We  can 
discern  them  only  by  their  fruits,  as  the  Baptist  did  the  Pharisees 
and  Sadducees :  '  O  generation  of  vipers,  who  hath  warned  you 
to  flee  from  the  wrath  to  come  ?  Bring  forth  therefore  fruits  meet 
for  repentance'  (Matt.  iii.  7).  I  tremble  and  shudder  at  the  rava- 
ges, which  I  see  that  terrible  disorder  making  amongst  some  of  the 
catholic  flocks  within  the  dominions  of  his  majesty.  But  as  insen- 
sibility of  infection  and  danger,  is  one  general  symptom  of  the  dis- 
order, I  yield  to  more  even  than  my  historical  duty,  in  sounding  the 
alarm,  in  manifesting  the  progress  and  mischief  of  the  disease,  and 
in  warning  every  pastor  of  a  catholic  flock  throughout  the  British 
Empire,  that  there  is  infinitely  less  danger  of  destruction  to  their 
flock  from  the  overt  errors  of  Arians,  Socinians,  Calvinists,  Luther- 


h  He  cites  O'Conor's  assertion  (Columbanus  v.  125.)  that  the  Council  of 
Trent  has  never  been  received  either  as  to  doctrine  or  discipline,  in  Ireland 
or  France  ;  and  the  doctrine  of  Walsh,  another  papist,  that  the  council  of 
Trent  w;is  neither  oecumenical,  nor  occidental,  nor  free. — Appendix,  28,  &c. 


APPEND.  I.]         RAVAGES  OF  JANSENISM.  317 

ans,'  or  any  avowed  separatists,  than  from  the  disguised  poison  of 
the  Jansenists,  vho  with  unrelenting  fersemrance  lurk  among  the 
catholics,  concealing  their  infection  under  an  ostentatious  display  of 
external  purity,  with  a  view  to  indulge  their  lust  for  seduction,  in 
the  true  spirit  of  their  insidious  founder.'  ....  I  openly  and  loudly 
profess  my  wishes  and  intentions,  but  lament  that  I  cannot  strength- 
en my  feeble  efforts  to  extinguish  the  fire  concealed  under  the 
treacherous  embers,  ere  it  burst  forth  into  a  flame,  that  may  reduce 
the  better  part  of  the  Empire  to  annihilation I  earnestly  in- 
voke every  individual  who  tenders  the  purity  of  catholic  faith  and 
church  government — "'^ 

X.  I  pause  here.  It  is  clear  that  these  gentlemen  who  vaunt 
so  exceedingly  the  perfect  unity,  the  irrefragable  authority,  the 
unalterable  orthodoxy  of  their  churches,  and  who  build  on  these 
assumptions  the  conclusion,  that  they  alone  constitute  the  catholic 
church  of  Christ ;  it  is  clear,  I  say,  that  they  have  been,  and  are, 
infected  with  heresy,  condemned  and  execrated  by  the  authorities 
of  their  church ;  and  so  much  infected,  that  perhaps  no  part  of 
the  church  is  equally  troubled.  Jansenism  still  exists  in  the  Ro- 
mish churches  of  the  continent.  It  would  be  easy  to  cite  many 
works  containing  its  principles  and  published  in  the  present  age. 
The  spirit  of  reform  which  accompanies  it  still  troubles  their  com- 
munity. In  Germany  it  cries  against  the  celibacy  of  the  clergy, 
and  the  withholding  of  the  cup  from  the  laity.  It  produces  prayers 
in  the  vernacular  tongue  there  and  in  England. ^  It  removes  im- 
ages from  their  churches  in  various  places,  and,  in  all,  continues 
to  enslave  the  Roman  church  to  the  civil  magistrate,  of  which  we 
continually  hear  bitter  complaints.  To  the  influence  of  the  same 
causes  we  may  doubtless  attribute  the  conduct  of  such  men  as 


'  Ibid    Appendix,  p.  28,  29.  k  p.  37. 

'  For  abundant  and  most  interesting  information  on  the  reforming  party 
in  the  Roman  churches,  see  an  article  on  the  state  of  the  Roman  catholic 
church  in  Silesia,  in  the  Foreign  Quarterly  Review  for  1827,  p.  515,  &c. 
This  article  is  attributed  to  the  eminent  author  of  "  the  State  of  Protes- 
tantism in  Germany."     [The  late  Rev.  Hugh  James  Rose.] 


318  JANSENISM.  [p.  I.  CH.  XI. 

Leander  Von  Ess,  Weissemburg,  and  other  liberal  Romish  priests, 
who  form  connections  with  the  Bible  Society,  contrary  to  the  rules 
of  their  church,  or  introduce  various  reforms  and  new  systems  of 
theology.  But  there  are  even  worse  doctrines  than  those  of  Jan- 
senism lurking  in  the  Roman  church. 


APPENDIX  11. 

ON   INFIDELITY  AND  INDIFFERENCE  IN  THE  ROMAN  CHURCH. 

In  tracing  the  existence  of  infidel  principles  in  the   Roman 
churches  I  undertake  a  truly  painful  task ;  but  while  I  most  deeply 
lament  their  existing  condition,  and  with  fervent  sincerity  pray 
that  the  spirit  of  irreligion  may  no  longer  continue  to   devastate 
them,  I  am  obliged  to   state  these   facts  in   consequence  of  the 
rash  and  arrogant  vauntings  of  Romish  theologians,  who  pretend 
that  their  churches  are  united  in  the  true  faith  and  in  holy  practice, 
to  a  degree  unparalleled  by  any  other  Christian  community.     The 
British  and  the   Oriental  churches  are  represented  as  devoid  of 
fixed  and  settled  faith.     We  alone  are  supposed  to  be  troubled  by 
the  presence  of  heretics  and  infidels,  while  the  Roman  church  is 
to  bear  away  the  palm  of  immoveable  faith  and  invariable  ortho- 
doxy.    It  is  a  certain  fact  that  many  of  the  worst  infidels  in  the  last 
century  were  members  of  the  Roman  church,  that  they  received  its 
sacraments,  and  even  officiated  as  ministers  at  its  altars.     Without 
speaking  of  the  infidel  publications  of  several  French  clergy  such 
as  the  Abbes  de  la  Baume,  de  Marsy,  &c.  during  the  middle  part 
of  that  century,  it  is  sufficient  to  remark  that  Voltaire  himself 
was,  during  his  whole  life,  a  member,  and  even  a  communicant  in 
the  Roman-  Church  !     Yes  : — he,  whose  unceasing  cry  as  applied 
to  our  Divine  and  ever-blessed  God  and  Saviour  was :  Ecrasez 
Vinfame!  was,  horrible  to  relate,  a  communicant  of  the  Roman 
church.     In  1754,  he  received  the  eucharist  at  Colmar.^     He  again 
received  it  in  1761,  "  precisely  at  the  time  when  his  correspond- 
ence and  his  writings  had  the  most  marked  taint  of  irreligion."'' 
He  again  communicated  in  1768,  and  preached  in  the  church  on 
theft.°     At  the  same  time  he  wrote  to  D'Alembert  with  reference 


*  Memoires  pour  serv.  a  I'hist.  Eccl.  pendant  le  xviii"  siecle,  torn.  iL 

535. 

b  536.  =  537. 


320  INFIDELS  IN  THE  ROMAN  CHURCH.       [P.  I.  CII.  XI. 

to  his  communion  at  Easter,  "  that  he  had  already  done  it  often, 
a.nd,  please  God,  would  do  it  again."'^  In  1769,  being  ill,  he  re- 
ceived the  Viaticum  from  the  cure  of  Ferney,  and  delivered  him  a 
declaration  in  which  he  said  that  "  he  owed  it  to  truth,  to  his 
honour,  and  to  piety,  to  declare  that  he  had  never  ceased  to  respect 
and  to  practice  the  catholic  religion  professed  in  the  kingdom,  .  .  . 
that  he  had  lived  and  wished  to  die  in  the  observance  of  all  the 
laws  of  the  kingdom,  and  in  the  catholic  religion,  (fec.""^  In  1778, 
he  sent  for  the  Abbe  Gauthier,  and  signed  a  writing,  in  which  he 
declared  that  "  he  had  confessed"  to  this  ecclesiastic,  "  and  wished 
to  die  in  the  catholic  religion,'^  &c.  In  fine,  he  was  buried  in  the 
Abbey  of  Scelli^res  in  Champagne.''  So  that  Voltaire,  amidst  all 
his  assaults  on  religion,  and  while  actually  engaged  in  a  war  of 
extermination  against  Christianity,  lived  and  died  in  the  commu- 
nion of  the  Roman  church  ! 

His  example  was  not  lost  on  his  followers.  Amongst  the  infidel 
association  of  the  "Illuminati"  we  learn  that  there  were  cures, 
priests,  and  one  who  was  raised  to  high  dignities  in  the  German 
church.s  Cardinal  de  Brienne  was  connected  with  d'Alembert 
and  the  infidel  philosophers,  and  was  supposed  to  share  their  sen- 
timents.^ And  who,  I  would  ask,  were  those  men,  Talleyrand, 
bishop  of  Autun,  De  Savines  of  Viviers,  De  Jarante  of  Orleans, 
the  infamous  Gobel,  bishop  of  Lydda  and  afterwards  of  Paris, 
Miroudet  of  Babylon,  Gay-Vernon,  Lindet,  Lalande,  Seguin,  Cha- 
bot,  Massieu,  Marolles,  Torne,  Pelletier,  Thibault,  Minee,  Herau- 
din,  Huguet,  Lefessier,  Panisset,  and  the  other  constitutional 
bishops,  who  renounced  their  functions,  sent  to  the  Revolutionary 
Convention  their  letters  of  orders,  mitres,  and  episcopal  ornaments, 
and  declared  that  there  ought  to  be  no  worship  but  that  of  reason, 
liberty,  and  equality?'  Who  were  these  men,  I  say,  but  bishops, 
or  at  least  priests,  of  the  Roman  church  ?  They  had  received  in 
that  church  their  ordinations.  They  had  imbibed  in  her  commu- 
nion the  principles  of  infidelity,  and  though  they  were  partizans 
of  an  institution  which  was  under  papal  censure,  (the  constitu- 
tional church,)  they  were  7iot  excommunicated  up  to  the  period  of 


d  540.  '  541.  f  638.  s  618,  619. 

>■  503.  '  III.  242—253. 


APPEND,  ir.]        INFIDELS  IN  THE  ROMAN    CHURCH.  321 

their  open  apostacy>  A  multitude  of  priests  followed  the  example 
of  these  bishops.  Infidels  and  Jacobin  priests  were  also  found  in 
Italy.^  The  infidel  priest  Geddes  was  of  their  communion  in 
England,  and  if  we  place  any  reliance  on  the  universal  opinion  of 
those  who  have  travelled  in  France,  Spain,  Portugal,  Italy,  and 
Germany,  there  are  numbers  of  infidels  not  only  amongst  the  laity, 
but  the  clergy  of  the  Roman  communion  in  those  countries.  Facts 
of  this  kind  repeatedly  stated  and  never  denied,  convince  us  that 
there  are  large  numbers  of  unbelievers  in  the  communion  of  those 
Churches  ;  and  it  is  well  known  that  especially  among  the  higher 
orders  of  Romanists,  in  England  and  Ireland,  infidelity  is  but  too 
common.  Jacobinism  and  infidelity  have  been  so  closely  con- 
nected from  their  birth,  that  Romanism  itself  may  well  tremble  for 
its  faith  in  Ireland  and  England :  the  principles  so  closely  united 
in  every  other  part  of  the  Roman  Obedience,  cannot  be  separated 
in  these  countries.  That  they  are  not,  in  fact,  we  have  the  most 
serious  reasons  to  apprehend,  from  the  reckless  manner  in  which 
even  priests  of  that  society  have  employed  in  controversy,  all  the 
arguments  of  infidels  and  Socinians  against  the  holy  Scripture,  the 
Divinity  of  Christ,  &c.  And  their  pertinacity  in  upholding  false 
and  ridiculous  miracles,  shows  a  carelessness  for  the  genuine 
miracles,  on  which  Christianity  is  founded. 

But  the  irreligion  of  members  of  the  Roman  churches  sinks 
deeper  even  than  direct  infidelity.  There  is  a  still  lower  depth  in 
which  they  are  plunged;  and  I  shall  here  avail  myself  of  the  testi- 
mony of  the  Abbe  La  Mennais,  in  a  work  written  many  years  ago, 
while  he  was  yet  of  the  highest  reputation  in  the  Roman  church. 
In  the  eighth  edition  of  his  '  Essai  sur  I'lndiflference'  he  says: 
"  What  do  you  perceive  everywhere,  but  a  profound  indifference  as 
to  duties  and  creeds,  with  an  unbridled  love  of  pleasure  and  of  gold, 
by  means  of  which  anything  can  be  obtained?  All  is  bought,  for  all 
is  sold ;  conscience,  honour,  religion,  opinions,  dignities,  power, 
consideration,  respect  even  :  a  vast  shipwreck  of  all  truths  and  all 
virtues."  .  .  .  "  Atheism,"  said  Leibnitz,  "  will  be  the  last  of  here- 
sies, and  in  effect,  indifterence  which  marches  in  its  train,  is  not  a 

'^  200.  >  368—9. 

VOL.  I. — 41 


322        DREADFUL    PREVALENCE    OF    INDIFFERENCE,    [p.  I.CH.XI. 


doctrine,  for  genuine  Indifferents  deny  nothing,  aftirm  notlung ;  it 
is  not  even  doubt,  for  doubt  being  suspense  between  contrary  proba- 
bilities, supposes  a  previous  examination  :  it  is  a  systematic  igno- 
rance, a  voluntary  sleep  of  the  soul Such,  is  the  hideous  and 

sterile  monster  which  they  call  indifterence.     All  philosophic  theo- 
ries, all  doctrines  of  impiety  have  melted  and  disappeared  in  this 
devouring  system.  .....  From  this  fatal  system,  become  almost 

UNIVERSAL,  has  resulted  under  the  name  of  tolerance,  a  new  sort  of 
temptation,"™   &c.     He  observes  that  "the  state  to.  which  we  are 
approaching  is  one  of  the  signs  by  which  will  be  recognized  that 
last  war  announced  by  Jesus  Christ :  '  Nevertheless,  when  the  Son 
of  man  cometh,  he  shall  tiud  faith  on  the  earth.'  ""      Such  is  the 
awful  picture  of  irreligion  in  the  Roman  church,  for  it  is  plain  that 
he  speaks  of  that  church,  and  that  it  must  be  included  under  the 
terms  he  employs.     Nor  is  this  merely  the  statement  ol  one  indi- 
vidual.    It  is   supported  by   the  pastoral   letter  of  the  bishop  of 
Troyes,  on  the  occasion  of  his  entry  into  his  diocese,  where  it  is 
said,  with  reference  to  the  carelessijess  and  disdain  of  indifference  : 
"  Such  is  now  the  great  wound  of  the   church,'  or, .  to  employ  the 
language  of  the  holy  Scriptures,  her  desperate  wound  ;  '  Desperata 
est  plaga  ejus.'     For  what  can  we  oppose  to  this  state  of  things  ? 
....  We  know  well  the  remedy  for  bodily  maladies,  but  the  remedy 

for  this  epidemic  malady  of  minds,  who  shall  lind  it  ?"°  This  evil 
therefore  afflicts  the  Roman  church  herself.  It  is  not  merely  found 
among  her  adversaries.:  it  is  within  her  own  bosom.  And  in  fine,  it 
is  so  sreat,  that  even  the  Head  of  the  Roman  church  has  been 
compelled  to  lay  open  the  condition  of  his  community  to  our  view. 
Gregory  XVI.  in  1832  addressed  an  encyclical  letter  to  all  the 
patriarchs,  primates,  archbishops,  and  bishops  of  his  Obedience,  in 
which  the  following  remarkable  passage  occurs  :  "  We  come  now 
to  another  most  abundant  cause  of  evils  with  which  we  grieve  to 
see  llie  church  afflicted,  that  is  to  say,  indifference,  or  that  perverse 
opinion,  which,  through  the  frauds  of  wicked  men,  has  become 
common  everywhere,  that  eternal  salvation  can  be  obtained  by  any 


"»  Essai  sur  rindifTerence,  torn.  i.  Introduction,  p.  21.  24,  25. 
«  Ibid.  25.  "  Ibid.  28,  29. 


APPEND.  II.]  PREVALENCE  OF  INDIFFERENCE.  323 

profession  of  faith,  provided  the  morals  be  correct  and  honest.  But 
in  a  case  so  clear  and  evident,  you  will  easily  expel  from  the  peo- 
ple committed  to  your  care  this  most  des|Mctive  error," p  &lc. 

Whatever  may  be  the  evils  affecting  our  branch  of  the  catholic 
church,  we  cannot  but  feel  grateful  to  Divine  Providence,  that  infi- 
delity and  indifference  scarcely  exist  amongst  us  ;  and  that  as  soon 
as  they  are  planted  by  some  rash  and  impious  men,  they  dry  up 
and  wither  away.  There  is,  at  this  moment,  more  of  evident  reli- 
gious zeal  in  the  British  empire,  than  in  any  other  part  of  Europe; 
and  this  arises  entirely  from  the  vigour  of  a  healthy  faith  in  our 
branch  of  the  catholic  church,  which  triumphs  amidst  a  thousand 
difficulties. 


*"  See  Appendix  IV. 


APPENDIX  III. 

ON   THE   SCHISMS   OF    1791   AND    1801. 

The  anti-papal  principle  of  Jansenism,  lurking  in  the  Roman 
communion,  combined  with  the  revolutionary  mania,  developed  in 
1790,  the  "  Civil  Constitution  of  the  Clergy"  in  France,  under 
which  false  appellation  the  constituent  assembly  effected  extraordi- 
nary alterations  in  spiritual  matters.  M.  Bouvier,  the  present 
bishop  of  Mans,  remarks  that  this  constitution  "  abounded  with 
many  and  most  grievous  faults."  "  First,"  he  says,  "  the  National 
Convention,  by  its  own  authority,  without  any  recourse  to  the  eccle- 
siastical power,  changes  or  reforms  all  the  old  dioceses,  erects  nevsr 
ones,  diminishes  some,  increases  others,  &c.;  (2.)  forbids  any  Gal- 
ilean church  or  citizen  to  acknowledge  the  authority  of  any  foreign 
bishop,  &c. ;  (3.)  institutes  anew  mode  of  administering  and  ruling 
cathedral  churches,  even  in  spirituals;  (4.)  subverts  the  Divine 
authority  of  bishops,  restraining  it  within  certain  limits,  and  im- 
posing on  them  a  certain  council,  without  whose  judgment  they 
could  do  nothing,"  =^  &c.  &c.  The  great  body  of  the  Galilean  bish- 
ops naturally  protested  against  this  constitution,  which  suppressed 
one  hundred  and  thirty-five  bishoprics,  and  erected  eighty-three  in 
their  stead,  under  different  titles.''  The  convention  insisted  that 
they  should  take  the  oath  of  adhesion  to  the  civil  constitution  in 
eight  days,  on  pain  of  being  considered  as  having  resigned  ;  and  on 
the  refusal  of  the  great  majority,  the  new  bishops  were  elected  in 
their  place,  and  consecrated  by  Talleyrand,  bishop  of  Autun,  assist- 
ed by  Gobel,  bishop  of  Lydda,  and  Miroudet  of  Babylon.*^ 

M.  Bouvier  proves,  from  the  principles  of  his  church,  that  this 
constitution  was  schismatical ;  that  all  the  bishops,  rectors,  curates, 


a  De  Vera  Ecclesia,  p.  411. 

'°  Memoires  pour  serv.  a.  Thist.  FiCcl.  xviii^  siecle,  torn.  iii.  p.  149. 

-  171. 


APPEND.  III.]    SCHISMATICS  IN  THE  ROMAN  COMMUNION.  325 

confessors,  instituted  by  virtue  of  it,  were  intruders,  schismatics, 
and  even  involved  in  heresy  ;  that  the  taking  of  the  oath  to  observe 
it  was  a  mortal  sin,  and  that  it  would  have  been  better  to  have  died 
a  hundred  times,  than  to  have  done  so.  Certainly  on  all  the  prin- 
ciples of  Romanists  at  least,  the  adherents  of  the  civil  constitution 
were  in  schism  and  heresy. 

Nevertheless,  these  schismatics  and  heretics  were  afterwards 
introduced  into  the  communion  of  the  Roman  church  itself,  in 
which  they  propagated  their  notions.  On  the  signature  of  the 
Concordate  between  Buonaparte  and  Pius  VII.  in  1801,  for  the 
erection  of  the  new  Galilean  church,  the  first  consul  made  it  a 
point,  that  twelve  of  these  constitutional  bishops  should  be  ap- 
pointed to  sees  under  the  new  arrangements.  He  succeeded.  "  He 
caused  to  be  named  to  sees,  twelve  of  those  same  constitutionals 
who  had  attached  themselves  with  such  obstinate  ■perseverance,  for 
ten  years,  to  the  propagation  of  schism  in  France.  .  .  .  One  of 
the  partizans  of  the  new  concordate,  who  had  been  charged  to  re- 
ceive the  recantation  of  the  constitutionals,  certified  that  they  had 
renounced  their*  civil  constitution  of  the  clergy.  Some  of  them 
vaunted,  nevertheless,  that  they  had  not  changed  their  principles ; 
and  one  of  them  publicly  declared,  that  they  had  been  ofTered  an 
absolution  of  their  censures,  but  that  they  had  thrown  it  into  the 
fire  !"'i  The  government  forbad  the  bishops  to  exact  recantations 
from  the  constitutional  priests,  and  commanded  them  to  choose  one 
of  their  vicars-general  from  among  that  party.  They  were  pro- 
tected and  supported  by  the  minister  of  police,  and  by  Portalis, 
the  minister  of  worship.''  In  1803  we  hear  of  the  "  indiscreet 
and  irregular  conduct  of  some  new  bishops,  taken  from  among  the 
constitutionals,  and  who  brought  into  their  dioceses  the  same  spirit 
which  had  hitherto  directed  them."     Afterwards  it  is  said  of  some 

d  421.  See  also  Mem.  Eccl.  de  France,  tom.  i.  eh.  5  and  7.  Lecoz, 
one  of  them,  is  there  said  to  have  been  "  extremely  attached  to  Jansen- 
ism." He  was  named  Archbishop  of  Bensanijon,  and  was  surrounded  by 
all  the  old  constitutional  bishops,  who  formed  a  sort  of  synod. — Ibid.  p.  101. 

*  422.  It  appears  that  the  instructions  of  the  government  required,  that 
one-third  of  the  clergy  should  be  taken  from  the  constitutionals. — Mem. 
JEccl.  de  France,  tom.  i.  p.  65. 


326  •        DEGRADATION   OF  THE  [p.  I.  CH.  XI. 

of  them,  that  they  "  professed  the  most  open  resis'anr.e  to  the  holy 
see,  expelled  the  best  men  from  their  dioceses,  and  perpetuated  the 
spirit  of  schism."^  In  1804,  Pius  VII.  being  at  Paris,  procured 
their  signature  to  a  declaration,  appro^-ing  generally  of  the  judg- 
ments of  the  holy  see,  on  the  ecclesiasii:,al  affairs  of  France  ;  but 
this  vague  and  general  formulary,  which  P>ouvier  and  other  Ro- 
manists pretend  to  represent  as  a  recantation,  was  not  so  understood 
by  these  bishops,"  and  thus  the  Gallican  church  continued,  and 
probably  still  continues,  to  number  schismatical  bishops  and  priests 
in  her  communion.  Such  is  the  boasted  and  most  inviolable  unity 
of  the  Roman  church  ! 

I  am  now  to  speak  of  the  Concordate  of  1801,  between  Buona- 
parte, first  consul  of  the  French  republic,  and  Pope  Pius  VII. 
The  first  consul  designing  to  restore  Christianity  in  France,  enga- 
ged the  pontiff  to  exact  resignations  from  all  the  existing  bishops 
of  the  French  territory,  both  constitutional  and  royalist.  The 
bishoprics  of  old  France  were  135  in  number;  those  of  the  con- 
quered districts  (Savoy,  Germany,  &c.)  were  24 ;  making  a  total 
of  159.^  The  constitutional  bishops  resigned  their  sees ;'  those, 
also,  who  still  remained  in  the  conquered  districts,  resigned  them 
lo  Pius  VII.  Eighty-one  of  the  exiled  royalist  bishops  of  France 
were  still  alive ;  of  these  45  resigned,  but  36  declined  to  do  so.^ 
The  pontiff  derogated  from  the  consent  of  these  latter  prelates,  an- 
nihilated 159  bishoprics  at  a  blow,  created  in  their  place  60  new 
ones,  and  arranged  the  mode  of  appointment  and  consecration  of 
the  new  bishops  and  clergy,  by  his  bulls  Ecclesia  Christi,  and  Qui 
Christi  Domini. ^     To  this  sweeping  concordate  the  French  govem- 

f  433.  ■  g  453,  454.' 

h  404.  419.     Bouvier,  de  Vera  Ecclesia,  p.  420. 

i  Memoires,  405,  406.     Mem.  Eccl.  de  France,  torn.  i.  c.  3. 

k  410.  Bouvier,  420.  Memoires  Eccl.  de  France,  torn.  i.  c.  2. 

1  Mem.  xviii.  siecle,  418,419.  Mem.  Eecl.  de  France,  torn.  i.  c.  4.  One 
of  the  principal  reasons  adduced  to  justily  these  unheard-of  proceedings, 
was  fear  lest  the  government,  disappointed  in  its  arrangements  with  Rome, 
should  establish  the  Constitutionals,  or  even  the  Lutherans.  So  great  was 
the  evil  deemed  of  losing  the  patronage  of  the  state,  that  in  order  to  obtain 
it,  all  the  canons  ivere  broken  through !  ■■.,,■ 


APPBMD.  HI.]  FRENCH   CLERGY.  -  327 

ment  took  care  to  annex,  by  the  authority  of  their  "  corps  legisla- 
tif,"  certain  "  Organic  Articles,"  relating  to  the  exercise  of 
worship.  According  to  a  Romish  historian,  they  "  rendered  the 
church  entirely  dependent,  and  placed  every  thing  under  the  hand  of 
government.  The  bishops,  for  example,  were  prohibited  from 
conferring  orders  without  its  consent :  the  vicars-general  of  the 
bishop  were  to  continue,  even  after  his  death,  to  govern  the  dio- 
cese, without  regard  to  the  rights  of  chapters  ;  a  multitude  of 
things  which  ought  to  have  been  left  to  the  decision  of  the  eccle- 
siastical authority,  were  minutely  regulated,"  &c.  The  intention 
was,  "  to  place  the  priests,  even  in  the  exercise  of  their  siJiritual 
functions,  in  an  entire  dependence  on  the  government  agents  !""* 
The  pope  remonstrated  against  these  articles— ^in  vain  :  they  con- 
tinued, were  adopted  by  the  Bourbons,  and,  with   some  modifxca- 

m  420.  The  reply  of  the  government  to  the  papal  remonstrance  was, 
that  "  the  French  sovereigns  regarded  themselves  as  les  eveques  du  dehors  ; 
that  they  had  always  exercised  a  real  power  in  matters  of  discipline,  public 
worship,  and  on  the  conduct  of  the  clergy !"  Mem.  Eccl.  de  France,  torn, 
i.  p.  71.  It  was  afterwards  said  by  the  government,  that  "the  Conseil 
d'Etat  succeeded  the  parliaments  in  ecclesiastical  matters." — Ibid.  p.  276. 
Every  one  knows  the  powers  assumed  by  the  parliamertts  ;  tliey  were  pro- 
verbially excessive.  The  minister  of  state,  Portalis,  directed  the  bishops 
as  to  the  administration  of  the  sacraments,  and  forbade  the  use  of  tickets  of 
confession. — Ibid.  c.  15.  In  fact,  the  correspondence  between  him  and  the 
clergy,  resembles  that  of  a  pope  or  a  metropolitan  with  his  subjects.  One  of 
the  piost  degrading  obligations  of  the  clergy  was,  to  read  aloud  the  "  Bul- 
letins of  the  Grand  Army  of  France  "  in  their  churches  !  ! ! — Ibid.  torn.  ii. 
p.  41.  Degradation  could  not  fall  lower  than  this.  Buonaparte  and  his 
ministers  also  judged  it  expedient  to  publish  the  catechism  of  Bossuet,  with 
numerous  alterations  and  improvements,  even  in  point  of  doctrine,  for  the 
use  of  the  whole  Galilean  church.  It  was  not  submitted  to  the  examina- 
tion of  the  prelates  ;  and  the  report  was,  that  it  had  been  drawn  up  by  the 
emperor  and  his  generals  ;  but  it  was,  in  fact,  prepared  in  common  by  the 
papal  legate  and  some  theologians,  under  the  supreme  control  and  theolo- 
gical dictation  of  Napoleon  himself! — Ibid.  tom.  ii.  c.  17.  During  all  these 
proceedings,  the  Roman  bishops  of  France  were  issuing  charges,  letters, 
&c.  in  which  Napoleon  was  described  as  "  a  man  sent  by  God ;"  and  in 
which  all  the  terms  of  a  most  fulsome  adulation  were  lavished  on  the 
emperor. 


328        ARBITRARY  PROCEEDINGS  OF  NAPOLEON.  [P.  I  CH.  XI. 

tions,  are  in  force  to  this  day ;    and  the  government  of  the  Galli- 
c^in  church  is  vested  more  in  the  Conseil  d'Etat,  than  in  the  bish- 
ops.    Buonaparte  assumed  the  language  of  piety,  while  he  pro- 
ceeded to  exercise  the  most  absolute  jurisdiction  over  the  church. 
"  Henceforward  nothing  embarrasses  him  in  the  government  of  the 
church  ;  he  decides  every  thing  as  a  master  ;  he  creates  bishoprics, 
unites  them,  suppresses  them.""     He  apparently  found  a  very  ac- 
commodating   episcopacy.     A    royal   commission,    including  two 
cardinals,  five  archbishops  and  bishops,  and  some  other  high  eccle- 
siastics, in  1810  and   1811,  justified  many  of  the  "Organic   Arti- 
cles"   which  the   pope    had  objected    to,   acknowledged   that  a 
national  council  could  order  that  bishops  should  be  instituted  by  the 
metropolitan  or  senior  bishop  instead  of  the  pope,  in  case  of  ur- 
gent circumstances  ;   and  declared  the  papal  bull  of  excommunica- 
tion, against  those  who  had  unjustly  deprived   him  of  his  states, 
was  null  and  void.°    y 

These  proceedings  were  by  no  means  pleasing  to  the  exiled 
French  bishops,  who  had  not  resigned  their  sees,  and  yet  beheld 
them  filled  in  their  own  lifetime,  by  new  prelates.  They  addressed 
repeated  protests  to  the  Roman  pontiff  in  vain.P  His  conduct  in 
derogating  from  their  consent,  suppressing  so  many  sees,  and  ap- 
pointing new  bishops,  was  certainly  unprecedented.  It  was 
clearly  contrary  to  all  the  canons  of  the  church  universal,  as  every 
one  admits.  The  adherents  of  the  ancient  bishops  refused  to  com- 
municate with  those  whom  they  regarded  as  intruders.  They 
dwelt  on  the  odious  slavery  under  which  they  were  placed  by  the 
"  Organic  Articles  ;"i  and  the  Abbes  Blanchard  and  Gauchet,  and 
others,  wrote  strongly  against  the  concordate,  as  null,  illegal,  and 
unjust  ;  affirmed  that  the  new  bishops  and  their  adherents  were 
heretics  and  schismatics,  and  that  Pius  VH.  was  cut  off  from  the 
catholic  church.''     Hence  a  schism  in  the  Roman  churches,  which 


"  504.  Mem.  Eccl.  de  France,  ii.  p.  317. 

o  Mem.  523—530.  Mem.  Eccl.  de  France,  ii.  327,  &c.  350,  &c.  399,  &c. 

P  411.  Mem.  Eccl.  de  France,  i.  310. 

q  423.  Mem,  France,  i.  312. 

■•  Mem.  506,  &c.  Mem.  France,  iii.  220. 


APPEND.  III.]     SCHISM  IN  THE  GALLICAN  CHURCH,  329 

contiHues  to  this  day,  between  the  adherents  of  the  new  Gallican 
bishops  and  the  old.  The  latter  are  styled  by  their  opponents, 
"  La  petite  Eglise.''^  The  truly  extraordinary  origin  of  the  pres- 
ent Gallican  church,  sufficiently  accounts  for  the  reported  preva- 
lence of  Ultramontane  or  high  papal  doctrines  among  them,  con- 
trary to  the  old  Gallican  doctrines,  and  notwithstanding  the  inces- 
sant efforts  of  Napoleon'  and  the  Bourbons  to  force  on  them  the 
four  articles  of  the  Gallican  clergy  of  1682.  They  see,  plainly 
enough,  that  their  church's  origin  rests  chiefly  on  the  unlimited 
power  of  the  pope. 

s  Bouvier,  de  Vera  Ecclesia,  Compendium  Histor.  ii.  par.  ii.  p.  424,  &c. 
Mem.  Eccl.  de  France,  tom.  i.  oh.  17.  I  may  here  add,  that  on  the  return 
of  the  Bourbons,  the  Gallican  church,  which  had  formerly  boasted  of  135 
sees,  found  herself  reduced  to  50.  Louis  XVIII.  and  the  pope  made  a 
new  Concordate  (1817),  by  which  the  latter  actually  erected  forty-two  new 
bishoprics,  and  the  king  nominated  a  number  of  bishops  accordingly ;  but 
the  French  "  chambers  "  proved  refractory,  and  in  obedience  to  their  will, 
the  pope  cut  down  the  number  to  thirty  new  sees. 

'  The  Organic  Articles  contain  an  express  provision,  that  the  four  Gal- 
lican Articles  should  be  acknowledged  by  all  heads  of  seminaries.  The 
same  condition  was  made  in  establishing  the  University  of  France,  1808. — 
Mem.  EccL  de  France,  t.  ii.  p.  2G8.  An  edict  (25  Feb.  1810)  declared 
these  articles  the  law  of  the  empire,  and  ordered  them  to  be  observed  by 
all  archbishops  and  bishops^  universities,  directors  of  semmaries,  and 
schools  of  theology. — Ibid.  p.  363. 


VOL.  I. — 42 


APPENDIX  IV. 

THE  ENCYCLICAL  LETTER  OF  GREGORY  XVI. 

This  letter  presents  so  remarkable  a  view  of  the  present  condi- 
tion of  the  Roman  church,  and  it  has  been  so  frequently  referred  to 
in  this  chapter,  that  I  subjoin  a  selection  of  those  passages  which 
are  likely  to  be  most  interesting.  It  is  entitled,  "  Sanctissimi 
Domini  nostri  Gregorii,  Divina  Providentia  Papse  XVI.,  Epistola 
Encyclica  ad  omnes  patriarchas,  primates,  archiepiscopos,  at  epis- 
copos,"  and  after  a  preface  proceeds  thus : 

"  Moerentes  quidem  animoque  tristitia  confecto,  venimus  ad  vos, 
quos  pro  vestro  in  religionem  studio,  ex  tanta,  in  qua  ipsa  versatur, 
temporum  acerbitate  maxime  anxios  novimus.  Vere  enim  dixeri- 
mus,  horam  nunc  esse  potestatis  tenebrarum,  ad  cribrandum,  sicut 

triticum,   filios  electionis.     Vere  '  luxit,  et  defluxit  terra 

infecta  ab  habitatoribus  suis,  qui  transgress!  sunt  leges,  mutaverunt 
jus,  dissipaverunt  foBdus  sempiternum.' 

"  Loquimur,  venerabiles  fratres,  quae  vestris  ipsi  oculis  conspici- 
tis,  quae  communibus  idcirco  lacrymis  ingemiscimus.  Alacris  ex- 
ultat  improbitas,  scientia  impudens,  dissoluta  licentia.  Despicitur 
sanctitas  sacrorum,  et  quce  magnam  vim,  magnamque  necessitatem 
possidet,  divini  cultus  majestas  ab  hominibus  nequam  improbatur, 
poUuitur,  habetur  ludibrio.  Sana  hinc  pervertitur  doctrina,  error- 
esque  omnis  generis  disseminantur  audacter.  Non  leges  sacrorum, 
non  jura,  non  instituta,  non  sanctiores  qucelibet  disciplinse  tutae  sunt 
ab  audacia  loquentium  iniqua.  Vexatur  acerrime  Romana  haec  nos- 
tra beatissimi  Petri  sedes,  in  qua  posuit  Christus  ecclesise  firma- 
mentum  ;  et  vincula  unitatis  in  dies  magis  labefactantur,  abrumpun- 
tur.  Divina  ecclesice  auctoritas  oppugnatur,  ipsiusque  juribus  con- 
vulsis,  substernitur  ipsa  terrenis  rationibus,  ac  per  sumraam  injuri- 
am,  odio  populorum  subjicitur,  in  turpem  redacta  servitutem.  De- 
bita  episcopis  obedientia  infringitur,  eorumque  jura  conculcantur. 
Personant  horrendum  in  modum  academiae  ac  gymnasia  novis  opin- 


APPEND.  IV.]       ENCYCLICAL  LETTER  OF  GREGORY  XVI.  331 

ionum  monstris,  quibiis  non  occulte  amplius  et  cuniculis  petitur 
catholica  fides,  sed  horrificum  ac  nefariuin  ei  belliim  aperte  jam  et 
propalam  infertiir.  Institutis  enim  exemploque  prasceptorum,  cor- 
ruptis  adolescentium  animis,  ingens  religionis  clades,  morumque 
perversitas  teterriraapercrebuit. 

"  Ad  eoriim  itaque  retundendam  audaciam,  qui  vel  jura  sanctas 
hujus  sedis  infringere  conantur,  vel  dirimere  ecclesiarum  cum  ipsa 
conjunctionem,  qua  una  esedem  nituntur  et  vigent,  maximum  fidei 
in  earn  ac  venerationis  sinceree  studium  inculcate  inclaraantes  cum 
S.  Cypriano  '  false  confidere  se  esse  in  ecclesia,  qui  cathedram 
Petri  deserat,'  &c. 

"  Nefas  porro  esset,  atque  ab  eo  venerationis  studio  prorsus 
alienum,  qua  ecclesiai  leges  sunt  excipiendse,  sancitam,  ab  ipsa  dis- 
ciplinam,  qua  et  sacrorum  procuratio,  et  morum  norma,  et  jurium 
ecclesiee  ministrorumque  ejus  ratio  continetur,  vesanaopinandi  libi- 
dine  improbari ;  vel  ut  certis  juris  natures  principiis  infestam  no- 
tari,  vel  mancam  dici  atque  imperfectam,  civilique  auctoritati  sub- 
jectam.  Cum  autem,  ut  Tridentinorum  Patrum  verbis  utamiir,  con- 
stat, ecclesiam  '  eruditam  fuisse  a  Christo  Jesu,'  &c.  .  .  .  absur- 
dum  plane  est,  ac  maxime  in  earn  injuriosum,  restauraiioncm  ac 
regenerationem,  quamdam  obtrudi,  quasi  necessariam,  ut  ejus  inco- 
lumitati  et  iucremento  consulatur,  perinde  ac  si  censeri  ipsa  possit 
vel  defectui,  vel  obscurationi,  vel  aliis  hujuscemodi  incommodis 
obnoxia ;  quo  quidem  molimine  eo  spectant  novatores,  ui^recentis 
humanoz  instilutionis  jacianlur fundamenla,  illudque  ipsum  eveniat, 
quod  detestatur  Cyprianus,  r.t,  qute  divina  res  est,  '  humana  fiat 
ecclesia.'  Perpendant  vero,  qui  consilia  id  genus  machinantur  :  uni 
Roma?io  pontijici,  ex  S.  Leonis  testimonio,  canonumdispensationem 
esse  creditam  .... 

"  Hie  autem  vestram  volumus  excitatam  pro  religione  constan- 
tiam  adversus  foedissimarn  in  clericalem  coeiibatum  conjurationem, 
quam  nostis  effervescere  in  dies  latius,  connitentibus  cum  perditis- 
simis  cevi  philosophis  nonnullis  etiam  ex  ipso  ecclesiastico  ordine, 
qui  personse  obliti  munerisque  sui,  ac  blanditiis  abrepti  voluptatum, 
60  licentiae  proruperunt,  ut  fuhJicas  etiam  atque  itera'us  aliquibus 


332  ROMAN    CHURCHES.  [p.  I.  CH.  XI. 

in  locis   ausi  sint  adhibere  principibus  postulationes,  ad  discipli- 
nam  illam  sanctissimam  p  rli  ngendam. 

"  Alteram  nunc  persequimur  causam  malorum  uberrimam,  quibus 
afflictari  in  prsesens  comploramus  ecclesiara,  indifferentismum  sci- 
licet, seu  pravam  illam  opinionem,  qure  improborum  fraude  ex  omni 
parte  percrebuit,  qualibet  fidei  professione  aeternam  posse  animae 
salutem  comparari,  si  mores  ad  recti  honestique  normam  exigantur. 
At  facili  sane  negotio  in  re  perspicua,  planeqiie  evidenti,  errorem 
exitiosissiraum  a  populis  vestrae  curse  concreditis  propelletis. 

"  Neque  laetiora  et  religioni  et  principatui  ominari  possemus,  ex 
eorun  votis,  qui  ecclesiam  a  regno  separari,  mutuamque  imperii  cum 
sacerdotio  concordiam  abrtimpi  discupiunt.  Constat  quippe  perti- 
mesci  ab  impudentissimae  libertatis  amatoribus  concordiam  illam, 
quae  semper  rei  et  sacrae  et  civili  fausta  extitlt  ac  salutaris." 


CHAPTER  XII. 

THE    LUTHERANS,   ZUINGLIANS,    AND    CALVINISTS. 

The  societies  of  which  I  am  about  to  treat  in  this  chapter, 
are  only  those  which  were  originally  separated  from  the  Ro- 
man Obedience.  I  leave  out  of  the  question  those  communi- 
ties which  have  separated  from  them,  and  which  are  too  insig- 
nificant to  merit  attention.  It  is  needless  to  say,  that  the 
Lutherans,  Zuinglians,  and  Calvinists,  are  accused  of  schism 
and  heresy  by  Romanists,  in  separating  themselves  from  the 
church,  denying  her  authority,  rejecting  tradition,  and  allowing 
private  judgment  to  an  unlimited  extent.  I  propose  to  examine 
whether  these  communities  did  voluntarily  separate  from  the 
church;  wl  ether  they  maintained  principles  subversive  of 
unity  in  faith  and  discipline  ;  whether  they  constituted  churches 
of  Christ ;    and  whether  it  was  allowable  to  hold  any  religious 

intercourse  with  them. 

» 

SECTION  I. 

WHETHER  THE  LUTHERANS  SEPARATED  FROM  THE  CHURCH. 

This  is  a  question  which  can  only  be  determined  by  reference 
to  the  facts  of  history,  and  these  prove  conclusively  that  Luther 
and  the  Lutherans  did  not,  either  in  intention,  or  by  act,  sepa- 
rate from  the  Roman  church  ;  that  they  were  always  desirous 
of  a  reconciliation,  and  that  they  were  disposed  to  make  great 
sacrifices  for  that  object. 

First,  then,  it  does  not  seem  that  Luther  had  the  slightest 
notion  of  separating  from  the  church  or  rejecting  its  authority. 
It  is  well  known  that  he  was  roused  by  the  abuses  of  Telzel, 
in  the  preaching  and  sale  of  indulgences,  abuses  which  are  ad- 


334  LUTHERANS  AND  REFORMED.      [p,  I.  CH.  XII. 

mitted  by  Romanists  themselves.  In  1517,  Luther  wrote  to 
the  archbishop  of  Mayence,  and  the  bishops  of  Brandenburg 
and  Merseburg,  urging  them  to  repress  the  evil  conduct  of 
Tetzel.''  In  1518,  he  transmitted  his  theses  on  indulgences  to 
the  bishop  of  Brandenburg,  his  diocesan,  protesting  at  the 
same  time,  that  he  did  not  mean  to  determine  them  dogmati- 
cally, but  that  they  were  merely  for  discussion  and  disputa- 
tion, as  was  customary  in  the  schools,  and  that  he  submitted 
himself  to  the  judgment  of  the  bishop.^  Nor  was  this  all.  In 
the  same  year  he  wrote  to  pope  Leo  X.,  with  the  greatest 
humility  and  respect,  relating  the  excesses  of  the  preachers  of 
indulgences,  his  having  informed  the  bishops,  and  his  disputa- 
tion against  the  dogmata  of  Tetzel,  which  he  justified  by  his 
academic  right  of  doctor  of  divinity,  and  by  the  faculties  he  held 
from  the  pope  himself;  concluding  with  an  assurance  that  his 
theses  were  merely  for  academical  disputation,  and  were  not 
intended  to  go  abroad  to  the  world  ;  and  finally  that  he  submit- 
ted himself  entirely  to  the  pontiff." 

Nothing  could  be  farther  from  any  appearance  of  schismati- 
cal  conduct  than  this.  It  is  obvious  that  Luther  paid  the  high- 
est respect  and  submission  to  the  ordinary  and  existing  autho- 
rities in  the  church,  and  that  his  principles  and  conduct  con- 
tradict the  notion  that  he  designed  to  separate  from  it.  Even 
writers  of  the  Roman  communion  are  obliged  to  confess,  that 
for  more  than  three  years,  that  is,  until  he  was  excommuni- 
cated by  Leo  X.,  all  his  discourses  were  full  of  similar  protes- 
tations.'^ Writers  of  another  sort  arc  too  often  disposed  to  pass 
over  these  circumstances,  as  if  they  were  in  some  way  discre- 
ditable to  Luther ;  but  the  simple  truth  is,  that  he  was  duly 
impressed  with  the  obligation  of  preserving  unity,  and  had  no 
wish  to  separate  from  the  Roman  church. 

Leo  X.  having  appointed  cardinal  Cajetan  to  be  judge  in 

a  Gerdesii  Historia  Evangelii  renov.iti,  torn.  i.  p.  90. 
^  Ibid.  p.  221.  <=  Ibid.  p.  221,  222. 

d  Fleury,  Hist.  Eccl.  liv.  125.  s.  73. 


SECT.  I.]        LUTHER  NOT  A  SEPARATIST.  335 

Luther's  case,  who  was  now  accused  of  heresy,  a  conference 
ensued  at  Augsburg,  in  which  Cajetan  insisted  that  Luther, 
without  any  discussion  to  ascertain  the  truth  or  falsehood  of  the 
positions  he  had  advanced,  should  at  once,  in  obedience  to  the 
papal  authority,  (which  he  exaggerated  in  the  highest  degree,) 
retract  his  errors.  Luther,  in  reply,  protested  that  he  would 
submit  to  the  jvdgmeni  of  the  Roman  church  ;  but  declined  to 
retract  his  positions  until  their  error  had  been  shown,  because 
he  had  advanced  them  not  dogmatically,  but  merely  in  the  way 
of  discussion  ;  that  he  had  said  nothing  in  them  "  contrary  to 
the  Scripture,  the  councils  and  fathers ; "  and  that  he  was 
ready  to  submit  to  the  decision  of  the  church.  He  treated 
Cajetan  with  the  greatest  respect,  and  even  offered  to  be  silent 
on  the  subject  in  future,  if  his  adversaries  Eckius,  Cochlaeus, 
De  Priero,  Hochstrat,  &;c.,  were  also  required  to  be  silent.^ 
In  conclusion,  finding  that  cardinal  Cajetan  had  orders  to  arrest 
him  and  bring  him  to  Rome,  if  he  did  not  renounce  his  doc- 
trines unconditionally,  he  withdrew  from  Augsburg,  but  ad- 
dressed a  letter  to  Cajetan,  offering  again  to  be  silent  if  his 
adversaries  were,  and  expressing  his  readiness  to  retract  if  his 
errors  should  be  proved.^  At  the  same  time  he  appealed  (as 
the  university  and  parliament  of  Paris  did  almost  contempora- 
neously s)  from  the  expected  sentence  against  him,  to  the  pope 
better  informed.^  In  all  this  Luther's  desire  of  peace  is  evi- 
dent, and  it  is  impossible  to  blame  him  for  dechning  to  retract 
as  errors  or  heresies,  without  any  discussion  or  ecclesiastical 
judgment,  what  he  had  merely  advanced  in  the  way  of  acade- 
mical discussion. 

Cajetan  nevertheless  at  once  treated  Luther  as  a  heretic, 
writing  to  the  elector  of  Saxony  and  urging  him  to  give  up 
Luther  to  the  papal  power,  or  at  least  to  expel  him  from  his  do- 
minions ;  but  the  elector  most  justly  replied,  that  Luther 
ought  not  to  be  treated  merely  by  the  way  of  authority,  and  be 


e  Fleury,  liv.  125.  s.  79—84.  f  §  84. 

«  §  54.  See  also  Gerdes,  torn.  i.     Appendix,  p.  60.         *"  Fleury,  s.  85. 


<>■ 


336  LUTHERANS  AND  REFORMED.     [P.  I.  CH.  XII. 

compelled  to  retract  before  his  cause  was  examined  and  judged, 
but  ought  first  to  be  lawfully  convicted  of  error.'  Still  Luther, 
though  well  aware  of  the  designs  for  his  destruction,  did  not 
attempt  to  revolt  against  the  church,  but  offered  to  accept  a7iy 
German  bishop  as  his  judge.'' 

Leo  X.  presently  issued  a  bull  approving  of  indulgences, 
and  condemning  all  who  disputed  the  doctrine  relating  to  them 
which  he  there  laid  down.'  This  decree  obliged  Luther  to  take 
the  farther  step  of  appealing  formally  from  the  pope  to  a  gene- 
ral council  (a  mode  of  proceeding  perfectly  legitimate,  and 
practised  perpetually  in  the  Roman  obedience.)  But  he  denied 
at  the  same  time  that  he  intended  "  to  depart  from  the  senti- 
ments of  the  church,"  or  to  "  doubt  the  primacy  and  authority 
of  the  Roman  see.""'  In  farther  testimony  of  his  wishes,  he 
again  wrote,  in  March,  1519,  to  Leo  X.,  (though  the  pontiff  had 
already  written  to  the  elector  of  Saxony  against  him  as  a  heretic, 
urging  his  banishment,")  declaring  in  the  most  submissive  terms 
that  he  had  never  designed  to  injure  the  authority  of  the  Roman 
church,  that  he  would  not  trouble  the  church  for  trifling  mat- 
ters, and  would  submit  to  all  that  was  required  of  him  for  the 
sake  of  peace. °  He  also  acquiesced  in  the  proposal  of  Miltitz, 
the  papal  nuncio,  to  be  judged  by  the  archbishop  of  Treves. 
At  the  beginning  of  his  discussion  with  Eckius,  in  the  same 
year,  Luther  and  his  friends  declared  that  they  did  not  wish  to 
remove  the  doctrines  of  the  catholic  church,  to  which  they 
always  desired  to  be  attached.^  In  1520,  he  wrote  to  the  arch- 
bishop of  Mayence  and  the  bishop  of  JTerseburg,  to  excuse 
himself,  and  to  request  them  not  to  believe  him  a  heretic  with- 
out hearing  him.'i  Nor  was  this  the  last  testimony  afforded  by 
Luther  of  his  desire  to  remain  in  communion  with  the  church. 
He  had  actually  engaged  Seckingen  to  procure  him  an  honour- 
able reconciliation  with  Rome,  as  cardinal  Pallavicini  acknow- 


i  lb.  s.  86,  87.  M  88-  '  §  89-  "  §  90. 

"  Liv.  126.  s.  9.  o  lb.  12.  p  lb.  25.  "  lb.  51. 


'.¥ 


SECT.  I.]         LUTHER  NOT  A  SEPARATIST.  337 

ledges/  when,  in  1520,  Leo  X.  issued  a  bull  against  Luther, 
in  which  it  is  declared  that  unless  he  shall  revoke  the  errors 
therein  attributed  to  him  within  sixty  days,  he  and  all  his  adhe- 
rents shall  be  deemed  to  have  incurred  all  the  penalties  de- 
nounced against  heresy,  that  no  Christian  shall  hold  communion 
with  them,  and  commands  that  their  persons  be  seized,  &c.s 
Finally,  in  January,  1521,  another  bull  formally  excommuni- 
cated Luther  and  all  his  adherents,  all  who  should  support  and 
protect  him,  who  follow  his  sect,  or  grant  him  their  favour.  All 
are  to  be  regarded  as  heretics,  whose  company  the  faithful  are 
commanded  to  avoid.  All  places  where  they  reside  are  laid 
under  an  interdict,  all  bishops,  &c.,  commanded  to  denounce 
them  in  their  churches  as  heretics,  &c.'     , 

These  certain  and  unquestionable  facts,  prove  beyond  dispute 
that  Luther  and  his  adherents  did  not  separate  from  the  Ro- 
man churches,  but  that  they  were  excommunicated  and  forcibly 
expelled  by  the  Roman  pontiff.  The  German  bishops  received 
and  acted  on  the  bull  and  therefore  the  Lutherans  were  in  fact 
separated  from  the  external  communion  of  the  German  church. 
But  this  by  no  means  closed  their  connexion  with  the  Western 
church  generally,  either  in  their  own  opinion,  or  in  that  of 
others. 

It  has  been  already  said,  that  Luther  appealed  from  the  Ro- 
man pontiff  to  a  general  council.  This  was  still  to  acknowledge 
the  authority  of  the, cAwrc/j,  and  to  allow  that  the  Western  was 
a  true  church.  To  this  appeal  Luther  and  his  friends  steadily 
adhered.  They  renewed  it  in  the  diet  of  Spires  (1529),^  and  in 
the  diet  of  Augsburg  (1530)  they  again  appealed;  they  de- 
clared that  they  had  not  established  any  new  sect  or  separated 
from  the  church  ;  that  they  did  not  differ  in  any  article  of  faith 
from  the   Roman  church,  but  merely  as  to  some  abuses  lately 

r  Pallavicini  Hist.  Cone.  Trid.  I.  i.  c.  21.     Fleury,  s.  63. 
»  Gerdes,  torn.  i.  Appendix,  p.  131,  &c. 
»  Gerdes,  torn.  ii.    Appendix,  p.  15,  &c". 
»  Fleury,  liv.  132.  s.  65,  66. 
VOL.  I. — 43 


338  LUTHERANS  AND  REFORMED.      [p.  I,  CH.  XII. 

introduced  ;  that  the  bishops  ought  to  continue,^  &c.  In  1531, 
the  king  of  France  understood  them  honestly  to  call  for  a  gene- 
ral council,  and  held  communications  with  them.  They  con- 
tinued their  appeal  in  the  following  year."^  In  1535,  Francis  I. 
was  desirous  of  inviting  several  of  their  theologians  to  France, 
in  order  to  make  some  accommodation  about  religion  ;  he  actu- 
ally did  invite  Melancthon,  but  was  induced  to  desist  by  the  car- 
dinal de  Tournon.^  Yet  Melancthon  writes  to  cardinal  de  Bel- 
lay,  bishop  of  Paris,  as  a  Christian  prelate,  and  expresses  his 
wish  that  the  power   of  bishops  should  be  preserved. ^     The 

^  Fleury,  liv.  133.  s.  24.  26,  27.  30.  The  Confession  of  Augsburg  (pars 
i.  art.  22)  says,  there  is  nothing  in  this  doctrine  "  which  ditfers  from  the 
Scriptures,  or  the  catholic  church,  or  the  Roman  church"  (pars  ii.  prolog.). 
They  "  differ  concerning  no  article  of  faith  from  the  catholic  church,  but 
only  omit  some  abuses,''''  &c.  It  says  of  bishops  (pars  ii.  art.  vii.)  :  "Ac- 
cording to  the  Gospel,  or  jure  divino,  bishops,  as  such,  i.  e.  those  who  have 
the  ministry  of  the  word  and  sacraments,  have  no  other  jurisdiction  than  to 
remit  sins,  to  take  cognizance  of  doctrine,  and  to  reject  doctrine  different 
from  the  Gospel,  and  to  exclude  sinners  of  known  impiety  from  the  com- 
munion of  the  church  without  human  force.     Hence  the  churches  ought 

necessarily,   and  jure  divino,  to  obey  them,"   &c "  The  bishops 

might  easily  retain  their  legitimate  obedience,  if  they  would  not  urge  us  to 
observe  traditions  which  cannot  be  kept  with  a  good  conscience.  .  .  There 
is  no  design  to  deprive  the  bishops  of  their  authority,  but  this  only  is  sought, 
that  the  Gospel  be  permitted  to  be  purely  taught,  and  a  few  observances  be 
relaxed,"  &c.  The  Apology  of  the  Confession  says  (art.  vii.)  :  "  Moreover, 
we  here  again  wish  to  testify,  that  we  will  willingly  preserve  the  ecclesias- 
tical and  canonical  polity,  if  the  bishops  will  only  cease  from  persecuting  our 
churches.  This  our  wish  will  excuse  us  both  in  the  presence  of  God,  and 
of  all  nations  to  all  posterity  ;  so  that  it  may  not  be  imputed  to  us,  that  the 
authority  of  bishops  is  overthrown,  when  men  shall  read  and  hear  that 
we,  deprecating  the  unjust  cruelty  of  the  bishops,  could  obtain  no  relief." 

w  Fleury,  liv.  1.34.  s.  5.  30. 

X  lb.  1.  135.  s.  73,  &c. 

>■  Gerdes,  torn.  iv.  p.  118,  &c.  Fleury,  1.  135.  s.  76.  See  also  1.  136. 
s.  44,  &c.  The  Articles  sent  into  France  by  the  Lutherans  on  this  occa- 
sion, acknowledged  that  "  ecclesiastical  government  is  holy  and  useful,  so 
that  it  is  necessary  that  there  should  be  bishops  superior  to  other  ministers." 
Melancthon  wished  for  bishops,  "  not  to  confirm  their  domination,  but  to  re- 


SECT.  I.]      THE  LUTHERANS  NOT  SEPARATISTS.  339 

king  of  France  approved  the  appeal  of  the  Lutherans  in  1537, 
against  the  assembly  of  a  council  at  Mantua.     In  all  this  there 
is  abundant  proof  that  the  Lutherans  did  not  consider  them- 
selves to  be  really  separated  from  the  church,   and  that  they 
w^ished  to  be  united  with  it.     It  is  evident  besides,  that  they  did 
not  generally  consider  their  own  position  and  tenets  so  fixed,  as 
that  there  might  not  be  an  accommodation  between  them  and 
the  church.     Thus,   in  1535,  a  correspondence  took  place  be- 
tween them  and  Francis  I.,  and  they  sent  twelve  articles  con- 
taining their  religious  tenets,  declaring  that  they  luere  ready  to 
retract  if  in  error,  and  expressing  their  readiness  to  concede 
much  for  the  sake  of  peace. ^     They  acknowledged  that  there 
ought  to  be  bishops,  and  some  went  so  far  as  to  approve  the 
authority  of  the  Roman  see.'^     The  assembly  of  Smalcald,  in 
1537,  did  not  allow  the  papal  authority,  but  it  approved  of  that  of 
bishops.''     Even  in  1540  there  were  conferences  in  the  diet  of 
Worms,  with  a  view  to  adjust  the  matters  in  controversy,  not- 
withstanding the  opposition  of  Vergerio  and  Campegio,  the  pa- 
pal emissaries  ;  who,  however,  finally  succeeded  in  putting  an 
end  to  them.''     Another   conference  with  the  protestants  was 
solicited  at  Haguenau,  but  objected  to  by  Cochlasus,  a  Romish 
theologian,  because  the  very  act  of  agreeing  with  the  Luther- 
ans, in  seeking  some  middle  course,  was,  in  his  opinion,  schis- 
matical.*^     Notwithstanding  this,  the  conferences  between  the 
two  parties  were  actually  renewed  at  Ratisbon  in  1541,  when 


establish  their  administration  ;  for  I  see  what  a  church  we  shall  have,  if  we 
overthrow  the  ecclesiactical  polity"  (Ub.  iv.  ep.  104).  The  articles  of 
Smalcald,  drawn  up  by  Luther  (pars  ii.  art.  iv.),  say,  "The  church  can 
never  be  better  governed  and  preserved,  than  when  we  all  live  under  one 
head,  Jesus  Christ,  and  all  lishops,  equal  in  office,  though  unequal  in  gifts, 

are  most  perfectly  united  in  diligence,  concord  of  doctrine,  &c TJie 

apostles  were  equal,  and  afterwards  the  bishops  in  all  Christendom,  until  the 
pope  raised  his  head  above  all." 

'  Fleury,  136.  s.  45.  "^  Ibid. 

•>  Articuli  Smalcald.  pars  ii.  .art.  iv.  ut  supra. 

c  Fleury,  139.  s.  53—56.  <i  Ibid.  s.  91. 


340  LUTHERANS  AND  REFORMED.      [p.  I.  CH,  XII. 

several  theologians  on  each  side  debated  amicably,  and  agreed 
on  many  of  the  disputed  points.*^  The  bishops  of  Germany, 
however,  in  a  harsh  manner,  rejected  the  articles  agreed  on ; 
but  the  laity  and  princes  petitioned  the  emperor  to  hand  them 
to  the  papal  nuncio,  and  to  consider  the  other  articles  in  debate, 
in  a  national  synod  of  Germany,  if  a  general  synod  could  not 
be  obtained/  The  protestants  avowed  their  opinion  that  there 
might  easily  be  an  agreement  on  all  the  points  in  debate  :  even 
the  papal  nuncio  expressed  a  hope  that  they  should  all  agree.^ 
All  these  circumstances  prove  that  the  Lutherans  did  not,  by 
any  means,  desire  to  remain  separate  from  the  church  ;  that  they 
acknowledged  all  its  ordinary  authority,  regarded  themselves  as 
merely  separated  from  the  Roman  see  by  an  abuse  of  authority, 
and  were  ready  to  make  many  concessions,  if  there  had  been  any 
disposition  to  meet  them.  The  war  of  Smalcald,  which  soon  after 
ensued,  and  in  which  the  emperor  endeavoured  to  subdue  the 
protestants  by  force  of  arms,  together  with  the  decrees  of  the 
Council  of  Trent,  which  without  admitting  or  hearing  their  the- 
ologians, decided  several  matters  in  controversy,  rendered  ac- 
commodation more  difficult.  But  still  they  were  willing  to  treat, 
provided  the  decrees  made  in  their  absence  were  not  held  bind- 
ing ;  and,  in  1548,  Melancthon  and  many  others  submitted  to  the 
imperial  decree  called  "  the  Interim,"  so  as  to  admit  the  rites  of 
the  Roman  church  generally,  without  any  material  alteration, 
except  in  receiving  both  kinds  in  the  eucharist.  Even  in  1551, 
they  sent  their  ambassadors  and  theologians  to  the  Council  of 
Trent,  which  refused  to  hear  them.  All  these  things  prove  that 
the  Lutherans  did  not  voluntarily  separate  from  the  church ; 
and  that,  at  all  events,  for  a  long  time,  they  desired  to  be  reunit- 
ed to  its  full  communion.  No  small  number  of  protestants,  in 
succeeding  ages,  considered  them  as  having  gone  to  very  un- 
justifiable lengths,  and  made  much  too  large  concessions  for  the 
sake  of  peace  ;  but  the  truth  is,  they  were  deeply  and  duly  im- 
pressed with  the  evils  of  separation,  and  its  contradiction  to  the 

'  Fleury,  139.  s.  98—102.  f  Ibid.  103.  s  Ibid.  105. 


SECT.  I.]  THE  LUTHERANS  NOT  SEPARATISTS.  ,  341 

divine  will ;  and  felt  that  no  obstacles,  except  those  which  arose 
from  certain,  clear,  and  irrefragable  necessity  ought  to  prevent 
union. 

I  do  not  mean  to  say,  that  there  was  not  sometimes  unjustifi- 
able violence  in  the  language  of  the  Lutherans.  Luther  some- 
times permitted  himself  to  be  transported  beyond  reasonable 
bounds,  by  his  indignation  at  the  tyranny  and  cruelty  with  which 
they  were  persecuted,  and  to  inveigh,  in  unmeasured  terms, 
against  the  doctrines  and  practices  which  he  opposed.  There 
was  not  less  violence  of  language  on  the  other  side,  and  his  tone 
was  lamented  by  the  wiser  Lutherans.''  He  also  exposed  him- 
self to  just  censure  by  several  acts.  His  burning  the  papal 
bulls  and  decretals  at  Wittemberg,  which  has  been  unwisely 
commended  as  a  noble  act,  seems  to  have  been  a  useless  ebul- 
lition of  indignation,'  in  return  for  the  burning  of  his  own  writings 
by  the  universities  of  Cologne  and  Louvain,  and  at  Mentz  and 
Treves.'^  But,  allowing  for  faults  on  both  sides,  it  is  clear  that 
the  Lutherans  did  not  wish  to  separate  from  the  church,  and 
that  they  were  ready  to  make  concessions  to  regain  its  commu- 
nion. It  would  be,  also,  a  great  mistake  to  suppose  that  Luther, 
or  his  party,  designed  to  effect  a  reformation  of  the  church  ;  they 
were  driven  entirely  by  the  force  of  circumstances  to  adopt 
the  course  they  did.  It  was  not  premeditated  nor  desired  by 
them.  They  would  have  widely  altered  the  Lutheran  system, 
which  was  a  merely  temporary  arrangement,  if  by  so  doing  they 
could  have  recovered  the  communion  of  the  church.  But  the 
opposition  of  the  Roman  see  thwarted  these  designs ;  the  Coun- 


i>  See  Melancthon,  Epist.  lib.  iv.  Ep.  28. 

'  [Its  form  is  hardly  to  be  commended  :  but  as  the  solemn  protest  of  a 
member  of  the  church  in  Germany,  against  the  usurped  authority  of  a  for- 
eign bishop,  it  was  far  from  "  useless."  Luther  had  claimed  to  be  tried  by 
his  own  ecclesiastical  superiors  ;  and  the  false  decretals,  which  he  burned, 
were  the  foundations  of  the  usurpations  by  which  they  were  deprived  of 
their  due  authority,  and  he  of  his  just  rights.] 

^  Gerdesii  Hist.  Evang.  Renov.  torn.  ii.  p.  14,  15.  Fleury,  Hist.  Eccl. 
liv.  126.  s.  81. 


342  LUTHERANS  AND  REFORMED.       [p.  I.  CH.  XII. 

cil  of  Trent  rendered  them  still  more  difficult ;  and,  in  lime, 
the  Lutherans  forgot  that  their  system  was  merely  provi- 
sional, pretended  to  justify  it  as  ordinary  and  sufficient,  and 
lost  their  desire  for  accommodation  with  the  Roman  and  Ger- 
man churches. 

SECTION  II. 

WHETHER  THE    ZUINGLIANS    AND  CALVINISTS   SEPARATED    FROM 

THE    CHURCH. 

Zuinglius  observed  the  prevalence  of  errors  and  corruptions 
around  him,  apparently  before  Luther  :  and  he  addressed  him- 
self, in  the  first  instance,  to  the  proper  ecclesiastical  authorities 
in  Switzerland,  the  bishop  of  Constance,  and  the  cardinal 
bishop  of  Sion,  in  order  to  procure  a  reformation  in  the  disci- 
pline of  the  Swiss  churches,  several  years  before  any  alteration 
was  made.^  In  1519,  he  was  appointed  to  the  principal  church 
of  Zurich,  where  he  declaimed  against  indulgences,  at  that 
time  preached  in  Switzerland ;  and  was  encouraged  to  do  so 
by  the  bishop  of  Constance.'"  He  also  began  to  preach  other 
doctrines  opposed  to  the  common  errors.  But,  notwithstanding 
this,  he  did  not  attempt  innovation  in  the  usual  rites.  For  five 
years  Zuingle  celebrated  mass  in  the  Roman  manner,  and 
persevered  in  all  the  usual  rites  and  ceremonies.  From  his 
discourses  some  persons,  in  1522,  discontinued  the  fasts  of 
the  church,  and  began  to  eat  meat  on  prohibited  days.  A 
controversy  ensued  in  consequence  between  Zuingle  and  Faber, 
the  vicar-general  of  the  bishop  of  Constance  ;  who,  together 
with  the  chapter,  had  accused  him  of  heresy  and  sedition,  to 
the  magistracy  of  Zurich.  In  this  conference  the  Zuinglian 
party  declared,  that  they  only  complained  of  the  multitude  of 
ceremonies,  which  were  more  grievous  than  the  Jewish ;  but 
that  they  did  not  contemn  all  human  precepts,  nor  did  they, 
either  in  act  or  intention,  separate  from  the  church.'^     In  this 


1  Gerdes.  i.  105.     Hospinian,  ii.  22.  "  Gerdes.  i.  262. 

"  Ibid.  267—270. 


SECT.  II.]     THE  REFORMED  NOT  SEPARATISTS.  343 

there  was  nothing  of  schism  certainly ;  and  the  senate  of  Zu- 
rich, though  favourable  to  Zuinglius,  manifested  its  respect  for 
constituted  authority,  by  decreeing  that  no  one,  without  serious 
cause,  should  break  the  fasts  of  the  church,  until  the  affair  was 
more  fully  expounded  and  cleared  by  the  bishop  °  In  May, 
1522,  this  bishop  wrote  to  the  chapter  of  Zurich,  to  prevent 
and  suppress  the  reformed  doctrines,  condemned  by  Leo  X.  in 
his  bull  against  Luther,  which  he  charges  with  schism,  heresy, 
&C.P  Zuingle  denied  the  imputation  of  seeking  to  withdraw 
the  people  from  the  communion  of  their  bishops. i  He  was 
again  formally  accused  of  heresy  in  1523,  by  the  Dominican 
friars.  The  senate  desired  to  hear  both  parties,  and  the  vicar- 
general  was  again  called  in  to  dispute  with  Zuingle.  It  was 
after  this,  that  the  senate  made  a  decree  that  Zuingle  should 
continue  to  preach  as  before,  that  the  clergy  should  preach 
nothing  except  what  they  could  prove  by  testimony  of  holy 
Scripture,  and  that  mutual  charges  of  heresy  should  be  ab- 
stained from."^ 

Thus  it  appears  that  the  Zuinglian  party  did  not  propose 
any  separation  from  the  church,  and  there  is  no  evidence  that 
they  ever  did  so  by  any  positive  act ;  but  the  bishops  and  the 
opposite  party  treated  them  as  heretics,  and  separated  them 
from  their  communion.  In  many  others  of  the  reformed  com- 
munities the  case  was  similar.  In  France  and  Belgium  those 
who  embraced  the  doctrine  of  Luther  or  Calvin,  were  not  only 
considered  heretics,  and  expelled  from  the  church,  but  were 
also  severely  and  cruelly  persecuted.  I  do  not  deny  that,  in 
several  instances,  there  was  a  degree  of  turbulence  in  the 
introduction  of  the  reformed  doctrines,  which  cannot  be  justi- 
fied ;  but  all  I  contend  for  is,  that  there  is  no  evidence  that 
their  adherents  generally  separated  from  the  communion  of  the 
church.  They  were  treated  by  those  around  them  as  heretics, 
and  were  thus  cut  off  from  external  communion  by  others,  and 
not  by  themselves.' 


0  Ibid.  p  Ibid.  272.  q  Ibid.  275.  r  Ibid.  286. 

[Admitting  the  correctness  of  the  author's  inference  from  the  vcrv 


344  LUTHERANS  AND  REFORMED.     [p.  I.  CH.  XII, 

-  It  is  true,  indeed,  that  we  cannot  adduce  in  their  case  such 
manifestations  of  a  desire  for  reunion  with  the  church,  as  in 
that  of  the  Lutherans.  They  did  not,  in  the  same  manner, 
continually  appeal  to  a  general  council,  nor  did  they  hold  con- 
ferences with  the  Roman  party,  with  a  view  to  reconcile  their 
differences.  But  the  reason  of  this  is,  that  they  were  excluded 
from  all  compromise  by  that  party.  It  was  one  of  the  condi- 
tions which  were  required  from  the  Lutherans  at  the  pacifica- 
tion of  Nuremburg,  that  they  should  not  unite  with  the  Zuin- 
glians  or  Sacramentarians.  The  Lutherans  themselves  did 
not  communicate  with  the  Sacramentarians;  and  the  latter  were 
thus  cut  off  by  all  parties,  and  had  no  hope  of  accommodation 
with  Rome. 

SECTION   III. 

WHETHER  THE  PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  FOREIGN  REFORMATION  WERE 

SUBVERSIVE     OF    UNITY. 

It  is  argued  by  Romanists,  and  too  often  ignorantly  or  art- 
fully admitted  by  others,  that  the  principles  of  the  Reformation, 
in  general,  were  subversive  of  all  church  authority,  and  all 
unity  of  faith  and  communion.  We  are  assured,  that  its  fim- 
damental  principle  was  the  absolute  right  of  every  individual 
to  deduce  his  own  religion  from  the  Bible  only,  to  the  exclusion 


general  statements  collected  in  the  text,  it  may  be  doubted  whether  most 
of  the  prominent  leaders  in  the  French  and  Swiss  reformations  did  not,  as 
individuals,  cut  themselves  off  from  the  communion  of  the  church,  by- 
schismatic  acts,  before  their  formal  and  final  exclusion  as  a  body ;  whether 
they  did  not  wantonly  disregard  and  violate  the  unity  of  the  church,  by 
unnecessary  insubordination  and  intrusion  ;  and  whether,  in  many  instances, 
they  did  not  add  heretical  unsoundness  to  schismatical  irregularity.  With 
few  exceptions,  the  history  of  the  new  doctrines  in  what  the  Lutherans 
call  the  "  Reformed  "  and  our  author  the  "  Zuinglian  "  conmiunion,  is  a 
sorrowful  tale  of  reckless  prosecution  of  justifiable  ends  by  the  most  un- 
justifiable means.] 


SECT,  in.]  OPPOSED  TO  LICENSE  OF  OPINION-  345 

of  Creeds,  Articles,  catholic  tradition,  and  the  authority  of  the 
church  ;  and  to  maintain,  with  unlimited  freedom,  whatever 
doctrines  appear,  to  his  own  private  judgment,  most  consistent 
with  Scripture.  This  pnetended  principle  of  the  Reformation 
is  entirely  overthrown  by  the  public  declarations  and  acts  of  all 
the  Lutherans  and  Reformed,  to  which  it  is  diametrically  op- 
posed. This  I  shall  show,  by  adducing  proofs  of  their  acknow- 
ledgment of  the  authority  of  the  catholic  church,  their  use  of,  and 
reverence  for  tradition,  and  their  condemnation  of  all  heresies. 
(1.)  I  shall  first  prove  their  admission  of  church  authority 
in  matters  of  faith,  and  of  catholic  tradition.  The  continual 
appeal  of  the  Lutherans  to  the  decision  of  a  general  council, 
in  the  controversies  of  doctrine  and  discipline  between  thera 
and  their  opponents,  proves  that  they  acknowledged  the  right 
and  authority  of  the  church  to  judge  in  religious  controversies. 
If  they  did  not  really  believe  that  the  church  had  such  an  au- 
thority, they  must  have  been  mere  hypocrites  in  appealing  to  her 
judgment ;  but  it  would  be  inconsistent  with  charity,  to  impute 
such  conduct  to  them  without  any  proof.  The  same  respect 
for  the  authority  of  the  church  was  shown  by  the  Lutherans 
in  the  Confession  of  Augsburg,  where  they  declare  that  they 
differ  in  no  article  of  faith  from  the  catholic,  or  even  the  Roman 
church  ;'  thus  tacitly  admitting,  that  it  would,  in  their  opinion, 
be  wrong  to  dissent  from  the  faith  of  the  church.  They  de 
clared,  "  that  they  had  taken  most  diligent  heed  that  no  novel 
and  impious  doctrines  should  creep  into  their  churches.""  And 
as  they  rejected  all  new  heresies,  so  did  they  reject  all  the  old 
heresies  contrary  to  the  catholic  doctrine,  and  condemned  by 
the  church  formerly.  The  Saxon  Confession  says :  "  We 
condemn  all  the  madnesses  (furores)  which  are  opposed  to  the 
creed  ;  such  as,  the  portentous  errors  of  Heathens,  Jews,  Ma- 
hommedans,  Marcion,  the  Manichees,  Samosatenians,  Arians, 
Macedonians,  and  others  condemned  by  true  judgments  of  the 

'  Conf.  August,  pars  I.  art.  22.  "  Conf.  Aug.Epilogus. 

VOL.  I. — 44 


346  LUTHERANS  AND  REFORMED.     [p.  I.  CH.  XII. 

church.''^^  The  Formula  Concordiae  says :  "  We  reject  and 
condemn  all  the  heresies  and  errors  which  were  rejected  and 
condemned  in  the  primitive  church  of  the  faithful,  from  solid 
proofs  of  the  word  of  GodT  The  Confession  of  the  French 
Calvinists  concurs  in  the  same  principle  of  reverence  for  catho- 
lic tradition.  "  We  approver  in  this  mystery  (the  Trinity)  what- 
ever those  four  ancient  councils  determined  ;  and  all  the  sects 
condemned  from  the  word  of  God  by  those  ancient  holy  doctors, 
such  as  Athanasius,  Hilary,  Cyril,  Ambrose,  and  others,  we 
detest."^  The  Belgic  Confession  speaks  of  the  "  Pseudo- 
Christians  and  heretics,  Marcion,  Manes,  Praxeas,  Sabellius, 
Samosatenus,  Arius,  and  others  who  were  rightly  and  deserv- 
edly condemned  by  the  orthodox  fathers^^  The  Polish  Con- 
fession says  :  "  We  receive  as  a  sure  and  undoubted  interpre- 
tation of  Scripture,  the  Nicene  or  Constantinopolitan  Creed 
....  to  which  we  acknowledge  the  Athanasian  Creed  to  be 
consonant :  also  the  Confessions  of  the  Synods  of  Ephesus 
and  Chalcedon  ;  also  whatever  the  fifth  and  sixth  Synods 
opposed  to  the  remains  of  the  Nestorians  and  Eutychians, 
whatever  the  Synods  of  Milevis  and  Orange  taught  against 
the  Pelagians  from  the  Scriptures,  whatever  the  primitive 
church,  from  the  apostolic  age,  believed  and  taught  with  a 
unanimous  notorious  consent,  as  a  necessary  article  of  faith, 
the  same  we  also  profess  to  believe  and  to  teach  from  the 
Scriptures."^ 

Hence  it  appears  that  the  Reformation  had  a  reverence  for 
the  doctrine  of  the  primitive  church ;  and  accordingly  we  find 
the  confessions  of  faith,  and  the  writings  of  the  reformed  doctors^ 
full  of  citations  from  the  fathers  and  councils.  The  Confession 
of  Augsburg  quotes  Ambrose,  Augustine,  Cyprian,  Jerome^ 

V  "  Damnamus  etiam  constantissime  omnes  furores  qui  pugnant  cum 

symbolis ;  ut  sunt   Ethnicorum,   &c portentosae  opiniones,   et  aliae 

condemnatse  veris  Ecclesiae  judiciis.'" — Conf.  Saxon.  1  De  Doctrina. 

*  Formula  Concordiae,  pars  II.  De  Antithesi,  &c. 

X  Confessio  Gallicana,  c.  vi.  ^  Conf.  Belgica,  c.  ix. 

*  Declaratio  Thoruniensis,  L 


SECT.  Ill,}  RESPECTED    CATHOLIC    TRADITION.  847 

Gelasius,  &c.  in  confirmation  of  its  doctrines.  The  Apology  of 
the  Confession  is  also  full  of  references  to  the  fathers,  and  in  one 
place  observes  that  the  doctrine  there  maintained  is  "  accordant 
with  the  writings  of  the  apostles  and  prophets,  the  holy  father- s^ 
Ambrose,  Augustine,  and  many  others,  and  the  whole  church  of 
Christ."^  The  Helvetic  and  most  other  Confessions  of  the 
Zuinglians  and  Calvinists,  are  full  of  references  to  the  authority 
of  the  fathers.  Melancthon  and  CEcolampadius  composed  books 
on  the  doctrine  of  the  fathers  concerning  the  eucharist.  Calvin 
himself,  in  his  Institutes,  quotes  largely  from  Augustine, 
Ambrose,  Chrysostom,  Bernard,  (fcc.  in  proof  of  his  doctrine  ; 
he  employs  their  authority  against  others  ;  he  examines  and 
refutes  the  interpretations  of  their  sentiments  advanced  by  Val- 
entinus  Gentilis  and  Michael  Servetus,  obviously  admitting  their 
authority.'^  Melancthon  says  :  "May  the  earth  open  under  my 
feet,  sooner  than  it  should  ever  happen  that  I  separate  from  the 
doctrine  of  the  church  in  which  Jesus  Christ  reigns."  On 
another  occasion  he  says  :  "  We  have  shown  always,  that  we 
do  not  shun  the  true  judgments  of  the  church,  nor  will  we  ever 
shun  them."^  "  We  leave  our  reply  to  the  judgment  of  the 
other  churches. "° '^  ■ 

*  Apologia  Confessionis,  III.  De  Dilectione  (268). 

a  Calvin.  Explicatio  perfidiae  Valent.  Gentilis,  inter  Tractat.  Theolog. 
p.  779,  &c.  See  also  his  Refutatio  error.  Mich.  Serveti,  in  the  same 
volume. 

b  Melancth.  Epist.  lib.  iii.  ep.  44 ;  i.  67. 

c  Epist.  i.  105. 

d  [The  following  is  worth  adding  on  account  of  its  strength,  and  the  im- 
portance of  the  document  where  it  appears. 

"  Preecipuae — cura  sit  hujus  Collegii,  docere  et  fueri  puram  Evangelii 
doctrinam,  traditam  in  libris  Propheticis  et  Apostolicis  cum  quibus  congruunt 
symbola,  Apostolicum,  NiccBnum,  et  Athanasianum.  Hoc  unum  genus 
doctrincB  verum  et  immotum,  quod  quidem  est  perpetuus  CatholiccB  Ecclesim 
Dei  consensus^  doceri  et  defendi  volumus. — Severissime  prohibemus  spargi 
et  defendi  ullas  opiniones  pugnantes  cum  illo  consensu,  et  confessione  nos- 
trarum  Ecclesiarum,  &c."  Statute  Collegii  Facultatis  Theologicae  in  Uni- 
versitati   Wittemburgica  Pezelii   Cone.  Theol.  Melancth.  p.   187. — The 


348  LUTHERANS  AND  REFORMED.    [p.  I,  CH.  XII. 

1  The  respect  of  the  Lutherans  and  Reformed  for  cathohc  tradi- 
tion was  evidenced  on  so  many  occasions,  that  even  Bossuet  is 
obhged  to  acknowledge,  "  que  nos  reformes  sont  souvent  con- 
traints  par  la  force  de  la  verite  a  respecter  le  sentiment  des 
peres  plus  qu'il  ne  semble  que  leur  doctrine  et  leur  esprit  ne  le 
porte."^  And  Blackburn,  who  pretends  that  the  principle  of  the 
Reformation  was  to  regard  catholic  tradition  as  of  no  authority, 
cannot  help  admitting  that  "  in  those  days  nothing  was  thought 
to  be  sufficiently  confirmed  by  Scripture  testimonies,  without 
additional  vouchers  from  the  ancient  worthies  of  the  church  : 
and  accordingly  Tertullian,  Chrysostom,  Austin,  and  Jerome, 
regularly  took  their  places  on  the  same  bench  of  judgment  with 
Paul,  Peter,  James,  and  John."^  This  statement  is  exaggerated, 
but  coming  as  it  does  from  an  enemy  of  catholic  tradition,  it  is 
a  strong  confirmation  of  the  reverence  of  the  reformers  for  the 
authority  of  the  church. 

(2.)  The  principle  and  practice  of  the  whole  Reformation 
was  diametrically  opposed  to  the  notion  of  the  unbounded  liberty 
of  private  judgment,  or  the  right  of  individuals  to  hold  what- 
ever religious  tenets  they  judged  most  conformable  to  Scripture. 
It  has  been  justly  observed  by  a  dissenter,  that  "there  is  a  cer- 
tain universal  candour,  or  rather  latitudinarianism,  which  is  but 
scepticism  veiled  as  an  angel  of  light ;  and  which  knows  not 
how  to  frown  on  sin  and  error  ;  but  on  the  principles  of  the  New 
Testament,  love  to  what  is  holy  cannot  exist  apart  from  love  to 
what  is  true  ;  and  this  spurious  charity  is  in  reality  nothing  else 
than  an  angel  of  darkness  and  a  minister  of  evil,"^     From  so 

same  rule  is  laid  down  for  the  interpretation  of  Scripture,  in  chap.  iv.  of  the 
same  document.     Ibid.  p.  191. 

Equally  strong  expressions  of  adherence  to  the  same  principle  are  used 
by  Melancthon,  in  his  Defensio  contra  Flacium  (in  1549,  fourteen  years 
after  the  date  of  the  Statutes  above  quoted)  citante  Seckendorf.  Lib.  III. 
p.  109.  a. ;  and  in  his  Greek  Epistle  to  the  Patriarch  of  Constantinople, 
Anno  1553  ;  citante  Hottinger,  Hist.  Eccles.  Sacc.  XVI.  Pars.  5.  p.  52.] 

«  Bossuet,  Variations,  liv.  ix.  s.  84.         f  Confessional,  p.  20. 

«  Essays  on  Church  Pohty,  Present  State  of  Religion,  &c.  p.  13. 


SECT,  in.]        REFORMATION    OPPOSED    TO   HERESY.  349 

evil  a  principle  the  Lutherans,  Zuinglians,  and  Calvinists  were 
entirely  free.  The  public  confessions  and  actions  of  these  socie- 
ties evince  their  devoted  attachment  to  the  doctrines  they 
believed  really  supported  by  Scripture  and  catholic  tradition, 
their  condemnation  of  those  who  held  contrary  heresies,  and  their 
determination  not  to  tolerate  such  heresies  in  their  own  com- 
munities. 

I  have  already  cited  some  passages  which  show  the  aversion 
of  the  Protestants  generally  from  heresy.  The  truth  is,  that 
their  public  confessions  and  acts  are  full  of  similar  passages, 
and  I  must  be  content  to  mention  only  a  few  other  instances  in 
which  this  feeling  (or  rather  principle)  is  displayed.  The  lan- 
guage of  the  Reformation  was  as  follows  :  "  We  execrate  all  the 
heresies  of  Artemon,  the  Manichees,^^  &c."  "  We  condemn 
all  heresies  and  heretics  who  teach  that  the  Son  and  the  Holy 
Ghost  are  only  in  appellation  God,"  such  as  the  "  Noetians, 
Praxeas,  Patripassians,  Sabellius,  Arius,'  &c."  "  We  abomi  • 
nate  the  infamous  doctrine  of  Arius  and  all  the  Arians  against 
the  Son  of  God,  especially  the  blasphemies  of  Servetus  and  his 
disciples,  which  Satan  by  their  means  brought  out  of  hell  against 
the  Son  of  God,  and  most  audaciously  and  impiously  dispersed 
through  the  world."  "  We  abominate  the  Nestorian  doctrine  ;" 
and  the  "  Eutychian  insanity,  removing  the  proper  human  nature 
of  Christ,  we  utterly  execrate."''  "All  those  heresies  which 
have  formerly  disturbed  the  church,  and  are  contrary  to  that 
truth,  we  detest ;  and  especially  the  diabolical  imaginations  of 
Servetus,  who  attributed  to  our  Lord  an  imaginary  deity."^  "  We 
condemn  the  damnable  and  pestilent  heresies  of  Arius, "»  &c." 
"  We  detest  the  error  of  the  Anabaptists,  who  are  not  contented 
with  one  baptism,""^  &c.  The  Confession  of  Augsburg  "  con- 
demns" all  the  heresies  of  Valentinians,  Arians,  Mahommedans, 
Pelagians,  Anabaptists,  &c.     Speaking  of  evil  doctrines,  the 

t  Confessio  Helvetica,  c.  i. 

'  Ibid.  c.  iii.  i'  Ibid.  c.  xi.  i  Confessio  Gallic,  c.  14. 

»  Conf.  Scotica,  art.  vi.  "  Conf.  Belgica,  art.  xxxiv. 


350  LUTHERANS  AND  REFORMED.     fp.  I.  CH.  XII. 

Articles  of  Smalcald  say :  "  Such  and  similar  portents  have 
arisen  from  ignorance  of  sin,  and  of  Christ  our  Saviour,  and  are 
really  heathenish  doctrines,  which  we  cannot  tolerate.^'"'  The 
"  Formula  Concordiae  "  is  full  of  condemnations  of  heresies. 
The  Polish  Confession  declares  that  whoever  shall  send  his 
children  to  Arian  schools  in  which  the  sincere  doctrine  of  the 
Gospel  is  not  taught,  shall  be  excluded  from  the  Lord's  supper 
and  the  communion  of  the  church  ;  and  "  whosoever  in  our 
evangelical  churches  shall  refuse  to  employ  the  expression 
'  Holy  Trinity,'  him  as  one  suspected  of  not  being  rightly 
grounded  in  the  faith  concerning  God  the  Father,  the  Son,  and 
the  Holy  Spirit,  we  exclude  from  our  communion,  &c.p 

Such  were  the  sentiments  of  the  Reformation  with  regard  to 
heresy.  The  reformers  exhaust  every  term  of  reprobation  in 
their  condemnation  of  heretics :  they  reckon  them  with  heathens, 
Mahommedans,  and  Jews  ;  and  those  who  would  blame  the 
severity  of  their  censure,  would  do  well  to  remember  the  words 
of  God  himself :  "  So  hast  thou  also  them  that  hold  the  doctrine 
of  the  Nicolaitans,  which  thing  I  hate."  Accordingly,  they 
act&d  on  this  principle.  The  Lutherans  rejected  the  Zuinglians 
from  all  communion,  because  they  were  heretical  in  the  doctrine 
of  the  eucharist.  The  Calvinists  in  the  Synod  of  Dort  con- 
demned and  excommunicated  the  Armenians  as  heretics.  The 
Swedish  Lutherans  excommunicated  as  heretics  the  Sacramenta- 
rians  and  the  Papists. 1  Nor  was  this  all.  They  asserted  the  right 
of  the  civil  magistrate  to  interfere  for  the  suppression  of  heresy. 
This  doctrine  is  maintained  by  the  Helvetic,''  Scottish,  Belgic, 
and  Saxon  Confessions  ;  and  they  were  so  far  influenced  by 
their  dread  and  hatred  of  heresy,  and  by  the  false  principle  of 
the  lawfulness  of  inflicting  capital  punishment  on  those  who 

o  Articuli  Smalcald.  pars  iii.  1.  de  Peccato. 

p  Thorun.  Synodi  Canon  vii. 

q  Baazii  Inventarium  Eccl.  Sueo-Gothorum,  lib.  iv.  c.  xi. 

■"  "  Coerceat  (magistratus)  et  haereticos  (qui  vere  haeretici  sxmt)  incorri- 
gibiles,  Dei  majestatem  blasphemare  et  ecclesiam  Dei  conturbare  adeoque 
perdere  non  desinentes." — Conf.  Helvet.  cap.  xxx. 


SECT.    III.]         OPPOSED    TO   LATITTJDINARIANISM.  351 

were  guilty  of  that  crime,  that  too  many  instances  are  to  be  found 
of  the  execution  of  heretics.  The  cases  of  Servetus,  Valen- 
tinus  Gentihs,  Campanus,  Gruet,  CrelUus,  Fehx  Mans,  &;c.  are 
unhappily  but  too  well  known  ;  not  to  speak  of  the  imprison- 
ment and  banishment  of  a  great  number  of  others. 

The  truth  is,  that  although  some  individuals  in  that  age  may 
have  held  principles  which  tended  to  the  conclusion  that  every 
man  was  at  liberty  to  hold  whatever  doctrine  he  pleased  ;  that 
conclusion  was  not  drawn.^  The  whole  body  of  the  Reformed 
held  the  directly  contrary  view.  They  were  zealous  for  the 
Christian  truth,  and  they  exhibited  that  righteous  and  holy  in- 
tolerance of  falsehood  and  heresy  which  is  one  of  the  essential 
characteristics  of  Christianity,*^  and  which  alone  subjected  it  to 
the  persecutions  of  heathenism  in  the  first  ages,  as  it  may  per- 
haps to  those  of  infidelity  in  the  last.  They  had  at  least  "  a 
zeal  for  God,"  even  if  it  was  not  always  "  according  to  know- 
ledge ;"  and  their  conduct  could  never  have  exposed  them  to 
the  divine  rebuke,  "  I  would  thou  wert  cold  or  hot.  So  then 
because  thou  art  lukewarm,  and  neither  cold  nor  hot,  I  will  cast 
thee  out  of  my  mouth."  Had  the  Reformation  maintained  the 
prmciple  of  an  unbounded  liberty  of  private  judgment,  so 
falsely  and  impudently  attributed  to  it,  there  could  be  no  occa- 
sion to  inquire  further  into  its  merits.     Such  a  system  would 


s  I  am  happy  to  be  enabled  to  confirm  this  position  by  the  unsuspected 
and  highly  important  testimony  of  Mr.  Hallam.  "  It  is  often  said,  that 
the  essential  principle  of  Protestantism,  and  that  for  which  the  struggle 
was  made,  was  something  different  from  all  we  have  mentioned,  a  perpetual 
freedom  from  all  authority  in  religious  belief,  or  what  goes  by  the  name  of 
the  right  of  private  judgment.  But  to  look  more  nearly  at  what  occurred, 
this  permanent  independence  was  not  much  asserted  and  still  less  acted 
upon,"  &c. — Literature  of  Europe,  vol.  i.  p.  521. 

t  "  Though  we  or  an  angel  from  heaven  preach  any  other  gospel  unto  you 
than  that  which  we  have  preached  unto  you,  let  him  be  anathema.  As  I 
said  before,  so  say  I  now  again,  if  any  man  preach  any  other  gospel  unto 
you  than  that  je  have  received,  let  him  be  anathema." — Gal.  i.  8,  9.  See 
Chapter  V.  sections  i.  ii. 


352  LUTHERANS  AND  REFORMED.     [p.  I.  CH.  XII. 

bear  so  evidently  the  brand  of  infidelity  upon  it,  that  every 
Christian  w^ould  turn  from  it  with  horror  and  detestation. 


SECTION  IV. 

WHETHER  THE  LUTHERANS,  ZUINGLIANS,  AND  CALVINISTS  WERE 

CHURCHES  OF  CHRIST. 

I  have  already  shown  that  the  reformed  did  not  voluntarily 
separate  themselves  from  the  existing  church,  but  were  ejected 
by  an  abuse  of  authority.  Consequently  they  are  exempt  from 
the  charge  of  schism  as  far  as  regards  the  separation.  Under 
such  circumstances  they  had  no  remedy,  and  were  obliged  to 
remain  as  a  distinct  community  until  God  should  see  fit  to  re- 
store them  to  union  with  the  rest  of  the  church.  They  were  to 
be  regarded  as  brethren  separated  indeed  from  the  external 
communion  of  a  large  portion  of  the  catholic  church  without 
their  own  fault,  but  not  internally  cut  off  from  it,  and  conse- 
quently still  in  the  way  of  salvation. 

But  while  this  is  maintained,  it  by  no  means  follows  that 
these  separated  brethren  constituted  of  themselves  churches  of 
Christ,  properly  speaking.  Their  position  was  extraordinary, 
temporary,  and  was  only  justifiable  on  the  plea  of  necessity. 
The  system  of  the  church,  as  it  related  to  them,  was  disar- 
ranged and  shattered,  and  they  had  to  construct  from  the  frag- 
ments a  temporary  and  provisional  system  adapted  to  the  exi- 
gencies of  their  case.  They  were  harshly  driven  from  the 
bosom  of  the  Christian  family,  where  they  had  been  within  the 
reach  of  all  the  means  of  grace,  and  were  obliged  to  establish 
themselves  elsewhere  as  best  they  could.  Hence  it  is  by  no 
means  necessary  to  the  justification  of  these  communities,  to 
suppose  that  they  really  constituted  churches,  in  the  ordinary 
sense  of  the  term,  and  were  invested  with  all  the  graces  and 
institutions  of  the  catholic  church.  That  the  Lutheran  and 
Calvinistic  societies  were  not  properly  churches  of  Christ,  I 
argue  thus. 


SECT.  IV.]    OF  TKE  LUTHERANS  AND  REFORMED.  353 

First,  these  societies  were  deficient  in  the  point  of  visible 
duration.  Every  church  of  Christ,  as  I  have  abeady  observed, 
must  be  able  to  prove  that  it  has  perpetually  existed  as  a  Chris- 
tian society  from  the  apostolic  times,  or  that,  w^hen  founded,  it 
was  derived  peaceably  from  the  apostolical  churches,  or  was 
received  and  acknowledged  as  a  church  by  such.  Now  this  does 
not  apply  to  the  Lutheran  and  reformed  societies,  because  they 
had  no  existence  as  societies  prior  to  their  separation  from  the 
ancient  churches  in  communion  with  Rome.  They  were  not 
the  original  Christian  communities  of  their  localities,  but  were 
unhappily  cut  off  and  separated  from  them.  Nor  does  it  ap- 
pear that  they  were  afterwards  recognized  as  Christian  churches, 
in  the  full  sense  of  the  term,  by  any  apostolically-derived 
churches.  Therefore  there  is  a  very  great  difficulty  in  suppos- 
ing that  they  were  really  churches  of  Christ. 

Secondly,  it  does  not  seem  that  they  could  offer  any  effectual 
opposition  to  schism.  They  acknowledged  for  some  time  that 
the  Roman  churches  were  true  churches,  while  they  them- 
selves, cut  off  by  the  ordinary  authority  of  those  churches, 
were  unable  to  invoke  its  aid  for  the  suppression  of  irregular 
and  schismatical  proceedings,  and  had  properly  no  other  mode 
of  treating  them  but  by  discussion.  It  does  not  seem  that  their 
societies  could  claim  any  of  that  ordinary  authority  which 
would  have  imposed  an  obligation  on  individuals  to  acquiesce 
in  their  regulations,  and  hence  we  cannot  wonder  that  divisions 
multiplied  exceedingly  among  them.  This  was  deeply  to  be 
lamented,  but  it  was  the  almost  inevitable  consequence  of  the 
unhappy  situation  in  which  they  were  placed.  Had  they  been 
invested  with  the  ordinary  authority  of  the  church,  they  could 
not  have  been  troubled  to  such  a  degree  with  schisms  and  con- 
tentions. 

Thirdly,  whether  these  societies  maintained  sufficiently  the 
necessity  of  sanctification,  is  not  very  clear.  Certain  it  is,  that 
Luther  went  so  far  in  his  opposition  to  the  error  of  justification 
by  our  own  merits,  that  he  fell  into  a  contrary  error.  His  most 
ardent  admirers  arc  obliged  to  acknowledge  that  "  he  carried 
VOL.  I. — 45. 


354  LUTHERANS  AND  REFORBIED.  [p.  I.  CH.  XII. 

the  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith  to  such  an  excessive  length, 
as  seemed,  though  perhaps  contrary  to  his  intention,  to  dero- 
gate not  only  from  the  necessity  of  good  works,  but  even  from 
their  obligation  and  importance  ;"^  and  that  "  he  not  only  re- 
moves the  necessity  of  sacerdotal  absolution,  and  satisfaction 
by  external  works,  in  order  to  the  remission  of  sins,  but  relieves 
sinners  in  some  measure  from  the  necessity  even  of  contri- 
tion.''''"' However,  the  reformers  generally,  after  a  time,  main- 
tained the  obligation  of  good  works,"^  and  condemned  Agricola, 
the  founder  of  the  Antinomian  heresy.  It  were  to  be  desired, 
however,  that  there  had  been  no  leaven  of  this  error  among  the 
Lutherans  and  Calvinists, 

Fourtlily.  These  societies  were  deficient  in  the  point  of 
apostolical  succession  in  their  ministry.  They  could  not  prove 
their  succession  from  the  apostles,  by  exhibiting  the  catalogues 
of  their  bishops  descending  from  them.  Far,  very  far  be  it 
from  us,  to  blame  them  for  any  deficiency  which  arose  from 
necessity  ;  or  to  assert  that  there  was  any  sinful  intrusion  on 
the  sacred  office  of  the  ministry,  when  under  such  absolute  ne- 
cessity, they  resorted  to  unusual  methods  to  supply  their  wants.^ 


•  "  Machine's  Translation  of  Mosheim,  vol.  iv.  p.  308.  Luther's  notions 
of  justification  can  therefore  be  of  very  little  weight. 

V  Gerdesii  Histor.  Evang.  torn.  i.  p.  220. 

w  "  Preeterea  docent  nostri,  quod  necesse  sit  bona  opera  facere." — Conf. 
August,  pars.  i.  c.  xx.  "  Sunt  enim  facienda  opera  propter  mandatum  Dei, 
&c.  propter  has  causas  necessario  debent  bona  opera  fieri." — Apol.  Conf. 
iii.  de  dilect.  et  impl.  legis.  The  Formula  Concordiae,  pars  ii.  art.  iv.  de 
bonis  operibus,  also  affirms  that  good  works  are  necessary,  and  quotes  Lu- 
ther, affirming  that  "  it  is  impossible  to  separate  good  works  from  true 
faith."  The  obligation  of  performing  good  works,  and  the  reward  await- 
ing them,  are  also  urged  by  the  Helvetic  Confession,  c   16. 

»  [Such  "  necessity  "  could  only  have  been  absolute  inability  to  procure 
orders  from  regularly  ordained  bishops.  It  wiU  not  be  denied  that  Luther 
was  virtually  in  possession  of  episcopal  jurisdiction,  at  Wittemberg,  after 
1526  ;  and  Calvin,  at  Geneva,  after  154L  They  needed  but  to  obtain  the 
order,  to  secure  the  apostolical  succession,  at  least.  How  far  their  treatment 
by  the  prevailing  faction  would  have  justified  such  an  establislunent  of  a 


SECT.  IV.]       DEFICIENT  IN  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.  355 

If  they  were  placed  in  an  extraordinary  position,  and  deprived 
of  the  assistance  of  those  to  whom  the  power  of  calHng  and  or- 
daining ministers  of  Christ  was  entrusted  by  the  will  of  God, 
we  could  not  blame  them  for  having  recourse  to  the  best  expe- 
dients within  their  reach.  Under  such  circumstances,  even 
popular  election  of  ministers,  or  mere  appointment  by  individu- 
als of  considerable  authority,  without  any  ordination,  could  not 
have  been  condemned ;  nor,  of  course,  could  there  be  any 
greater  objection  to  ordinations  performed  by  mere  presbyters. 

— — — — fc. — —^ 

new  branch  of  the  church  in  the  West,  is  a  distinct  question,  but  compara- 
tively easy  of  solution,  on  the  grounds  taken  in  the  preceding  sections,  and 
in  ch.  xi.  sec.  iv. 

Could  they  have  obtained  the  order  ? 
I.  As  to  Luther. 

Several  bishops  are  known  to  have  been  favourable  to  "  the  new  learn- 
ing" and  to  its  founder  personally :  e.g.  George  Polentius,  bishop  of  Sam- 
bia,  in  1524  ;  his  successor,  Paul  Speratus,  in  1530  ;  (Wernsdorf.  Program, 
de  Anhaltinorum  in  Ref.  meritis.  p.  1.  s.)  Matthew,  bishop  of  Dantzig, 
who  wrote  to  Luther  in  terms  of  strong  affection,  and  sent  him  a  present, 
in  1529  ;  (Luther's  Briefe.  Ep.  1110.  ed.  De  Wette.  III.  462  ;)  Matthew 
Jagovius,  bishop  of  Brandenburg  ;  (the  diocesan  of  Wittemberg  ;)  the  arch- 
bishop of  Salzburg,  who  preceded  Ernest;  (accessit,  1540;)  and  Herman, 
the  famous  reforming  archbishop  of  Cologne,  of  whose  liturgical  labours  so 
much  use  has  been  made  in  some  of  the  offices  of  the  English  church. — It 
is'hard  to  believe  that  if  due  anxiety  had  been  felt,  and  proper  measures 
taken,  the  episcopal  succession  might  not  have  been  obtained  for  the  Lu- 
theran communion  from  some  one  or  more  of  these  prelates. 
IT.  As  to  Calvin. 

Peter  Paul  Vergerio,  bishop  of  Capo  d'Istria,  and  more  than  once  papal 
nuncio,  went  over  to  the  reformed  about  1546.  His  brother,  also  a  bishop, 
followed  him.  Spifame,  bishop  of  Nevers,  became  a  Protestant  in  1557. 
He  was  employed  in  important  negotiations,  and  was  m  Geneva  about  that 
time.  He  was  called  to  be  "ministre"  at  Lyons  in  1561.  (Bayle,  Art. 
Spifame.)  Jo.  Anth.  Caraccioli.  bishop  of  Troyes,  publicly  embraced 
Protestantism  in  1561.  He  offered  to  resign  to  the  people,  but  Avas  re- 
elected and  re-ordained.     (Bayle,  Art.  Caraccioli.) 

These  instances  (and  there  were  others)  show  that  the  succession  was 
within  the  reach  of  the  reformer  of  Geneva,  had  .he  thought  it  desirable  to 
secure  it.    He  had  not,  therefore,  the  plea  of  necessity  for  its  neglect.] 


356  LUTHERANS  AND  REFORMED.     [p.  I,  CH.  XIT. 

Certainly  not :  absolute  necessity  would  excuse  and  justify  such 
proceedings,  however  irregular^      But  it  is  a  very  different 
question  whether  these  ordinations  were  valid ;  whether  they 
really  conveyed  the  apostolical  commission  ?     There  is  an  ex- 
treme difficulty  on  this  point,   because  the  whole  practice  and 
principle  of  the  catholic  church,  and  even  of  the  ancient  here- 
sies, limited  ordinations  to  the  chief  pastors  of  the  church.     It 
is  not  to  be  wondered  at,  perhaps,  that  the  reformed  caught 
eagerly  at  one  or  two  misinterpreted  passages  in  the  Fathers, 
which  they  supposed  to  countenance  merely  presbyterian  ordi- 
nations ;    but   the  weight  on  the  other  side  is    so  great,  that 
there  must  at  all  events  be  more  serious  doubts  of  their  validity. 
Even  conceding,  however,   that  presbyterian  ordinations   are 
valid,   there  would  still  be  considerable  imcertainty  whether 
they  were  preserved  in  the  Lutheran  and  reformed  societies ; 
for  it  appears  that  several  of  their  ministers  at  the  beginning 
acted,  and  probably  ordained  others,   without  having  been  or- 
dained presbyters  themselves.     Calvin  was  not  even  a  deacon. 
Beza  was   never  ordained  ;    BuUinger,   Brentius,    and  many 
others,  seem  to  have  been  in  the  same  case.^    Luther  and  Zuin- 
glius  appear  to  have  claimed  extraordinary  mission  sometimes,* 
and  Beza,  in  the  Colloquy  of  Poissy,   to  the  discredit  of  his 
party,  denied  the  necessity  of  any  imposition  of  hands,  and  ad- 
mitted that  many  of  them  did  not  receive  it.''     It  was  after- 
wards declared  in  the  confession  of  the  reformed  of  France, 
that  in  their  time,  when  the  state  of  the  church  was  interrupted, 
God  had  raised  up  persons  in  an  extraordinary  manner,<=  &c., 

y  [Will  "  absolute  necessity  excuse  and  justify  "  a  man  in  assuming  to 
he  that  which  he  is  not,  and  to  give  that  which  he  has  not  1  Surely,  the 
true  excuse  which  necessity  affords,  is  for  the  wanting  that  which  cannot 
be  obtained :  not  for  the  pretending  to  have  that  which  is  wanting,  or  to 
supply  it  without  the  power.] 

I  See  Gerdesii  Hist.  torn.  ii.  p.  79 — 83. 

»  Fleury,  liv.  126.  s.  80. 

^  Fleury,  liv.  157.  s.  13.  15. 

"=  Confess.  Gallicana,  Art.  XXXL 


SECT.  IV.]       DEFICIENT  IN  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.  857 

and  their  Synod  of  Gap  decided  that  the  vocation  of  their  min- 
isters who  had  reformed  the  church,  M^as  derived  not  from  their 
ordinary  vocation,  but  from  one  which  was  extraordinary  and 
internal.'^  Now  we  may  infer  from  all  this,  that  a  good  many 
of  the  first  ministers  of  the  Reformation  were  not  themselves 
presbyters,  and  therefore  that  there  is  considerable  uncertainty 
as  to  the  continuance  even  of  presbyterian  ordinations  in  those 
communities. 

That  the  reformed  were  sensible  that  the  mission  of  their 
preachers  was  not  ordinary,  and  that  it  was  only  justified  by 
necessity,  we  may  fairly  conclude  from  their  relinquishing  the 
ancient  and  scriptural  appellations  of  the  ecclesiastical  minis- 
try, and  no  longer  pretending  to  ordain  bishops  and  presbyters. 
Luther  and  Zuinglius  assumed  the  titles  of  "  ecclesiastes," 
while  their  adherent  ministers  were  called  to  the  various  offices 
of  "  antistes,"  "  pastor,"  "  superintendent,"  "  inspector,"  "  ab- 
bot," "  propositus,"  &c.  The  ancient  orders  of  bishop  and 
presbyter  were  appropriated  by  the  church.  The  Lutherans 
and  Calvinists  ordained  to  other  offices,  and  thus  evinced  their 
secret  persuasion  that  the  church  alone  retained  the  ordinary 
and  apostolic  vocation  of  ministers.  It  would  seem,  indeed,  as 
if  the  Lutheran  preachers  were  originally  regarded  in  some- 
what the  same  light  as  the  first  Wesleyan  raethodist  preachers 
in  more  recent  times.  They  were  not  to  intrude  on  the  sphere 
of  the  established  clergy  of  the  church,  but  to  co-operate  with 
them  where  they  could.  Luther  himself  declared  that  he  pre- 
ferred that  Lutherans  should  retire  from  a  parish  rather  than 
preach  there  by  intrusion  ;  that  no  one  ought  to  preach  without 
the  knowledge  of  the  lawful  minister  ;  which  shouM  be  so  re- 
ligiously observed,  that  an  evangelical   ought  not  to  preach  in 


d  [Calvin  distinctly  claims  such  an  extraordinary  mission  for  the  refor- 
mers. "  Apostolos — vel  saltern  eorum  loco  evangelistas  interdum  excita- 
nt Deus,  ut  nostra  tempore  factum  est.  Talibus  enim  qui  ecclesiam  ab 
Anticliristi  defectione  reducerent,  opus  fuit.  Munus  tamen  ipsum — extra- 
or</ma?-m.y  appello." — Institut.  IV.  iii.  4.] 


358  LUTHERANS  AND  REFORMED.     [l 

the  parish  of  a  papist  or  a  heretic,  without  the  participation  of 
the  pastor,  because  no  truly  pious  man  ought  to  attempt  any- 
thing without  vocation,"  &c.  •  ' 

I  conclude  from  all  this,  that  the  societies  of  Lutherans  and 
Calvinists  could  not  have  been  considered  as  churches  of  Christ, 
properly  speaking ;  though  they  might  have  been  called  so  in 
a  general  and  popular  way,  as  being  internally  united  to  the 
church.  It  is  to  be  lamented,  that  in  process  of  time  the  socie- 
ties of  the  foreign  reformation  forgot  the  principles  on  which 
their  founders  had  set  out,  and  deemed  it  necessary  to  assume 
the  office  and  character  of  churches  of  Christ  in  the  ordinary 
sense  ;  for  this  not  only  placed  them  in  a  false  position  in  their 
controversies  with  Rome,  but  interposed  a  new  obstacle  to  any 
accommodation  between  them  and  the  church,  while  it  led  them 
to  reject  that  catholic  tradition  which  did  not  support  their  novel 
system,  and  thus  to  open  the  door  for  the  intrusion  of  heresy 
and  infidelity. 

I  have  spoken  throughout  of  the  foreign  reformation  as  of  a 
thing  that  has  passed  away.  Lutheranism  and  Calvinism  are 
indeed  now  little  more  than  matters  of  history  ;  for  the  feeble 
and  lifeless  relics  which  they  have  left  behind,  and  which  still 
bear  their  name,  are  but  painful  memorials  of  systems  whose 
imperfections  and  faults,  whatever  they  might  be,  were  digni- 
fied by  a  holy  ardour  and  zeal  for  God  and  for  God's  revelation. 
Now,  when  the  confessions  of  faith  for  which  Luther,  and  Zuin- 
glius,  and  Calvin  would  have  laid  down  their  lives,  are  thrown 
aside  as  obsolete,  or  subscribed  with  salvos  and  declarations 
which  render  the  act  of  subscription  a  mere  mockery  ;  how  can 
we  recognize  the  existence  of  their  faith  ?    Overrun  by  the  auda- 


e  In  ps.  Ixxxii.  de  Magistrat.  torn.  iii.  fol.  488, 489,  a.d.  1534.  In  speak- 
ing of  the  Lutheran  ordinations,  and  generally  of  the  state  and  position  of 
the  foreign  reformation,  I  do  not  include  the  Swedish  Lutheran  church,  be- 
cause it  forms  a  peculiar  case,  and  I  have  not  yet  examined  completely  the 
question  of  their  orders  and  reformation. 


SECT  V.j  RELIGIOUS  INTERCOURSE.  359 

cious  impiety  of  neologism,  an  infidelity  which  cloaks  itself  , 
under  the  name  of  Christianity  in  order  to  inflict  a  more  griev- 
ous wound  on  faith,  or  sunk  into  the  deadly  slumber  of  Soci- 
nian  and  Arian  apostacy,  Lutheranism,  and  Calvinism,  as  reli- 
gious systems,  seem  to  have  nearly  perished  in  the  countries 
where  they  arose/ 


SECTION  V. 

WHETHER  IT  WAS  LAWFUL  TO  HOLD  ANY  RELIGIOUS  INTERCOURSE 

WITH  THESE  SOCIETIES. 

If  there  were  probable  reasons  for  considering  the  Lutherans, 
&c.  as  not  guilty  of  schism  or  heresy,  then  it  was  lawful  on  the 
principles  of  Christian  charity,  to  hold  intercourse  and  com- 
munion with  them.  (1.)  Now,  it  has  been  shown  that  they  did 
not  voluntarily  separate,  in  general,  from  the  church,  but  were 
excommunicated  by  the  Roman  pontiff;  and  this  excommunica 
tion  was  not  that  of  the  whole  catholic  church,  for  it  was  onl}'- 
received  and  acted  on  by  some  of  the  Western  bishops,  who 
were  apparently  under  the  influence  of  the  pontiff  and  the  em- 
peror. It  has  also  been  shown,  that  they  did  not  wish  to  remain 
separate  from  the  church,  that  they  acknowledged  its  authority, 
and  were  willing  to  communicate  with  and  obey  their  bishops, 
if  they  had  abstained  from  persecuting  them  in  obedience  to  the 
papal  commands.  Hence,  more  especially  when  they  testified 
a  desire  to  communicate  with  the  Galilean,  the  British,  and  other 
parts  of  the  church,  it  seemed  that  they  might  be  considered 
very  probably  as  not  formally  schismatical.s'     Doubtless  the 

''  See  the  Abbe  Gregoire's  Histoire  des  Sectes,  &c.  Reports  of  the 
Continental  Society  ;  but  above  all,  Mr.  Rose's  State  of  Protestantism  in 
Germany. 

g  Melancthon  thus  states  the  case  of  his  party  :  "  We  are  not  deserters 
from  the  church,  we  are  not  separated  from  the  body  of  Christ ;  for  those 
who  retain  the  true  doctrine  of  the  Gospel,  and  are  obedient  to  i(.,  remain 


360  LUTHERANS  AND  REFORMED.      [p.  I.  CH.  XII, 

writings  of  some  of  them  were  too  violent,  and  they  were  not 
free  from  the  imputation  of  tumult  and  disorder,  but  the  more 
wise  and  moderate  among  them  discouraged  all  such  proceed- 
ings, and  their  violence  of  language  was  rivalled  by  that  of  their 
opponents.  (2.)  It  was  also  very  probable  that  they  were  not 
heretics.  For,  whatever  their  doctrines  might  be,  it  did  not 
seem  that  they  generally  defended  them  with  obstinacy  against 
the  evident  truth.  They  received  all  the  creeds  of  the  church, 
professed  to  be  guided  by  Scripture  and  tradition,  and  to  intro- 
duce n»  heresies  or  novelties.  Their  opinions  were  not  con- 
demned by  any  clear  judgment  of  the  universal  church,  for  the 
Synod  of  Trent,  as  I  shall  prove  in  Part  IV.,  was  not  of  binding 
authority.  They  varied  in  their  doctrines,  and  some  things 
which  had  been  incautiously  said  by  Luther  and  Zuinglius, 
were  modified  and  corrected  by  their  adherents.  The  error  of 
Zuinglius,  CEcolampadius,  and  Carlostadt  on  the  Eucharist  had 
been  apparently  given  up  by  Calvin,  who  obtained  a  great  influ- 
ence in  the  Zuinglian  and  reformed  communities.  His  language 
was  strongly  in  favour  of  the  real  presence,  though  at  the  bot- 

members  of  Christ  though  the  pontiffs  should  expel  them  from  their  com- 
munion. .  .  .  This  difference  arose  at  the  beginning  from  the  reproof  of  a 
most  scandalous  sale  of  indulgences.  Then  the  pontiff  and  his  adherents 
met  together,  and  the  excommunication  was  fulminated.  Are  we  said  to  be 
cut  off  from  the  church  on  account  of  those  unjust  decrees  ■?" — See  his  Epis- 
tles, lib.  i.  ep.  67.  which  well  merits  a  perusal.  In  another  place  he  puts 
the  argument  very  strongly  from  their  Appeal  to  a  General  Council.  "  Those 
who  ex  animo,  and  not  feignedly,  appeal  to  the  judgment  of  the  church,  are 
by  no  means  enemies  of  the  church,  or  seditious,  or  schismatics,  or  heretics : 
for  it  is  written,  If  he  neglect  to  hear  the  church,  let  him  be  unto  thee  as  a 
heathen  or  a  publican.  Therefore,  so  long  as  he  does  not  refuse  to  accept 
the  judgment  of  the  church,  he  cannot  be  called  an  enemy  or  a  schismatic." 
— Melanc.  Enarr.  in  Evang.  Joh.  tom.  iii.  Oper.  p.  797.  [It  ought  to  be 
taken  into  account,  also,  that  their  excommunication  was,  in  most  instances, 
entirely  irregular  and  uncanonical.  The  usurped  power  of  the  bishop  of 
Rome,  in  part  brought  to  bear  upon  them  directly,  in  part  operating  on  the 
authorities  to  whom  alone  they  were  truly  amenable,  prejudged  their  cause, 
and  deprived  them  of  all  the  advantages  of  regular  trial  and  appeal.] 


SECT,  v.]    RELIGIOUS  INTERCOURSE  WITH  LUTHERANS,  &C.       361 

torn,  his  doctrine  was  inconsistent  with  it ;  and  the  differences 
between  the  Lutherans  and  Sacramentarians,  on  this  point,  were 
not  for  a  long  time  discovered  to  be  insurmountable.''  Many 
conferences  had  taken  place  between  the  Lutherans  and  the 
Roman  party,  and.  concessions  had  been  made,  which  inferred 
that  there  was  not  any  obstinate  adherence  to  preconceived  opin- 
ions ;  and  the  Lutheran  divines  had  offered  to  7'etract  if  in  error, 
and  continually  appealed  to  the  judgment  of  a  general  council. 
All  these  circumstances  combine  to  prove  that  there  was  great 
probability  that  the  Lutherans  and  Calvinists  were  not  heretics ; 
and  when  particular  persons  or  churches  were  convinced,  from 
an  examination  of  the  several  questions  in  debate,  that  the  truth 
lay  more  with  the  Lutherans,  &;c.  than  with  their  opponents  ; 
or  even,  that  it  was  equal  on  both  sides  ;  they  were  justified  in 
not  excluding  the  members  of  the  reformed  societies  from  their 
communion.        ?      V 

This  will  suffice  to  clear  us  from  any  charge  of  countenancing 
heresy  or  schism,  on  account  of  the  intercourse  which  some 
members  of  our  churches  formerly  held  with  the  Lutherans  and 
Calvinists.  There  was  a  great  probability  that  they  were  not 
schismatics  nor  heretics ;  and  as  they  did  not  exhibit  an  un- 
friendly feeling  to  our  churches,  there  were  good  and  sufficient 
reasons  to  view  them  with  kindness  and  charity.  The  suffer- 
ings which  we  experienced,  in  common  with  them,  from  the 
persecution  and  ambition  of  the  Roman  pontiff,  added  sympathy 
to  this  general  good-will ;  and  the  agreement  on  certain  points 
of  doctrine  and  discipline  against  Rome,  may  have  perhaps  in- 
duced us  to  give  a  better  construction  to  some  things  than  they 
deserved,  and  to  overlook  some  faults  which  an  unfriendly,  or 
even  a  strict  criticism  would  have  condemned.  It  is  possible 
that  some    of  our  writers,    and   particular    members  of    our 

''  Even  in  1560  Jewell  could  say  of  the  Zuinglians  and  Lutherans  :  "  tan- 
turn  de  una,  nee  ea  ita  gravi  aut  magni  quaestione,  inter  se  disscntiunt.  Nee 
desperamus,  vel  potius  non  dubitamus,  brevi  fore  concordiam,"  &c. — Apol. 
p.  63,  64.  ed.  1608. 

VOL.  I. — 46 


362  LUTHERANS  AND  REFORMED.      [p.  I.  CH.  XII. 

churches,  may  have  been  deceived  in  the  question  of  fact,  and 
esteemed  the  Lutherans  and  Calvinists  more  free  from  fault 
than  they  really  were  ;  but  if  so,  it  v^^as  a  mistake  as  to  fact 
only :  there  w^as  no  wish  to  countenance  heresy  or  schism, 
which  the  churches  of  Britain  have  always  abhorred  and  con- 
demned. Even  churches  are  not  free  from  the  possibility  of  be- 
ing deceived  as  to  the  real  character  of  those  with  whom  they 
communicate,  and  still  less  are  individuals,  however  orthodox 
and  pious  they  may  be  in  themselves. 


OBJECTIONS.' 

I.  Even  if  Luther  and  his  adherents  had  been  unjustly  ex- 
communicated by  Leo  X.  still  they  were  guilty  of  schism  in  es- 
tablishing private  conventicles,  and  altering  the  rites  of  religion. 
St.  Augustine  says,  that  "  Divine  Providence  often  permits 
even  good  men  to  be  expelled  from  the  Christian  congregation, 
through  the  turbulent  seditions  of  the  carnal ;  which  contumely 
or  injury,  if  they  endure  patiently  for  the  peace  of  the  church, 
and  attempt  no  novelties  of  schism  or  heresy,  they  will  teach 
men  with  what  true  affection  and  what  sincere  love  God  should 
be  served  ....  such  are  crowned  in  secret  by  the  Father,  who 
seeth  in  secret :  they  seem  to  be  rare,  yet  examples  have  been 
found."'  Therefore  the  Lutherans  ought  to  have  remained  pa- 
tiently under  the  excommunication,  even  if  it  had  been  unjust, 
and  not  to  have  established  conventicles. 

Answer.  There  was  no  reason  why  an  unjust  excommunica- 
tion, which  deprived  them  of  the  external  communion  of  the 
faithful,  should  induce  them  in  addition  to  dej)rive  themselves 
of  the  means  of  grace,  and  especially  the  blessed  sacrament  of 
the  eucharist,  which  is  "  generally  necessary  to  salvation." 
Many  of  them  were  clergy  empowered  duly  by  ordination  to 
administer  the  means  of  grace.     Surely  it  would  be  most  un- 


'  Augustinus  de  vera  Religione,  cap.  vi.  torn.  i.  p.  752. 


OBJECT.]  LUTHERAN  ALTERATIONS  EXCUSED.  363 

reasonable  to  expect,  that  men  who  feh  themselves  not  to  have 
been  condemned  by  a  legitimate  judgment  of  the  church,  should 
abstain  at  once  from  all  the  most  sacred  duties  of  religion. 
Good  conscience  would  never  have  permitted  such  a  proceed- 
ing. It  must  be  remembered  that  they  were  aj^pellants  to  a 
general  council,  and  were  authorized  in  not  considering  them- 
selves as  definitely  separated  from  the  church.  St.  Augustine, 
perhaps,  only  speaks  of  cases  where  there  is  no  question  of 
doctrine,  and  where  those  expelled  have  not  to  offer  any  testi- 
mony against  prevalent  errors  ;  but  at  all  events,  he  does  not 
prohibit  such  persons  from  using  the  means  of  grace  if  they 
can  obtain  them.  i 

With  regard  to  the  change  of  rites  it  may  be  replied,  that, 
under  the  circumstances,  they  could  not  obtain  permission  from 
the  ordinary  authorities  to  do  so,  for  those  authorities  had  sepa- 
rated them  from  their  communion.  The  question  then  arises, 
whether  they  were  strictly  bound  to  adhere  to  rites,  which  were 
manifest  innovations,  abuses,  things  not  enjoined  or  required 
by  the  catholic  church,  and  injurious  to  piety  and  sound  reli- 
gion. Under  the  extraordinary  circumstances  in  which  they 
were  placed,  it  does  not  seem  that  there  was  any  thing  schis- 
matical  in  abstaining  from  such  rites  provisionally,  until  the 
church  should  decide  the  questions  in  controversy,  and  receive 
them  into  communion  again.  And  this  was  what  the  Lutherans 
did  ;  for  they  were  ready  to  make  alterations  in  order  to  regain 
communion  with  the  church  ;  and  the  Zuinglians  would  doubt- 
less have  done  the  same,  only  that  their  doctrine  on  the  eucha- 
rist  excluded  them  from  all  accommodation.'' 

II.  The  Reformation  was  effected  in  most  places  by  the  au- 
thority of  the  civil  magistrate,  who  had  no  right  to  interfere  in 

k  [It  will  be  observed  that  the  author's  answer  tends  to  the  exculpation 
of  the  Lutherans,  &c.,  for  continuing  to  minister  m  orders  already  received, 
and  for  reforming  the  rites  by  which  they  ministered  ;  but  does  not  touch  the 
very  serious  charge  of  schismatic  usurpation  in  professing  to  convey  au- 
thority to  minister  to  others,  as  their  successors.] 


364  LUTHERANS  AND  REFORMED.    [P.  I.  CH.  XII. 

questions  of  doctrine  and  discipline  ;  therefore  the  Reformation, 
as  emanating  from  an  usurped  and  intrusive  authority,  was 
schismatical. 

Answer.  The  magistrates  were  obhged,  in  several  instances, 
to  take  some  measures  in  religion ;  because  the  public  peace 
was  endangered  by  the  contending  parties.  This  was  the  case 
at  Basle,  Geneva,  and  elsewhere.  In  other  places,  as  at  Zu- 
rich, the  magistrates  were  obliged  to  examine  the  question,  in 
consequence  of  the  applications  of  the  Romish  party  to  put 
down  by  force  the  doctrines  of  the  Reformation.  In  many 
cases  simple  protection  was  afforded  by  the  civil  magistrate,  as 
in  Friesland,  Goslar,  Holstein,  Dithmar,  &c.  At  Strasburg  the 
senate  would  not  give  up  the  married  clergy  to  be  punished  by 
the  bishop,  until  he  had  first  punished  those  who  were  guilty  of 
more  scandalous  crimes ;  and  when  they  finally  suspended 
mass  according  to  the  Roman  rite,  it  was  only  conditionally, 
until  its  supporters  should  prove  it  conformable  to  the  word 
of  God.' 

I  do  not  deny,  however,  that  the  civil  magistrates  did  over- 
step occasionally  their  legitimate  office  ;  but  those  regulations, 
which  they  made  by  the  desire  and  advice  of  the  Lutherans 
and  Calvinists,  for  their  societies,  are  not  to  be  reckoned  among 
intrusions  on  the  office  of  the  church.  Zuinglius  himself,  who 
has  been  accused  of  attributing  too  much  to  the  civil  magis- 
trates, says,  that  "  the  civil  power  (which  is  placed  in  supreme 
authority,  in  order  to  correct  and  regulate  externals,)  when  it  is 
Christian,  may,  with  the  consent  of  the  church,  (for  T  do  not  wish 
to  be  understood  without  that  consent,)  make  laws  concerning 
those  externals,  which  are  either  to  be  observed  or  neglected.""* 
Such  was  the  principle  on  which  the  regulations  of  the  civil 
magistrates  in  religion  were  generally  made.  And  besides  this, 
they  were,  as  I  have  already  observed,  only  of  a  temporary 
provisional  nature.     It  must  be  remembered  too,  that  the  Em- 


'  Gerdes.  torn.  ii.  p.  120.  206. 

"'  Gerdes.  torn.  i.  supplement,  ad  p.  286  and  287. 


OBJECT.]  INTERFERENCE  OP  THE  MAGISTRATES.  365 

peror  Charles  V.  in  1548,  published,  by  his  own  authority,  the 
Interim,"  which  contains  numerous  regulations  concerning  doc- 
trine and  discipline,  and  which  he  forced  on  his  subjects.  The 
Diet  of  Ratisbon,  in  1540,  took  cognizance  of  religious  ques- 
tions ;  and  even  Era,smus  gave  it  as  his  opinion  to  the  magis- 
trates of  Basle,  that  the  diet  of  the  empire  might  permit  the 
clergy  to  marry,  and  the  religious  to  leave  their  convents. ° 
Therefore  the  Lutherans,  &c.  were  not  the  only  persons  who 
allowed  the  authority  of  the  civil  magistrates. 

III.  The  Arians,  Apollinarians,  and  other  heretics  might  have 
alleged  also  that  they  were  unjustly  condemned  by  the  church  ; 
and  if  the  merits  of  the  church's  judgments  are  to  be  inquired 
into,  there  can  be  no  use  in  them,  for  controversy  will  be  per- 
petual. 

Ansiver.  I  do  not  examine  whether  the  church  judged  justly 
or  unjustly,  but  what  I  contend  is,  that  the  church  did  not  judge 
at  all  in  these  controversies.  I  shall  hereafter  prove  (Part  IV.) 
that  the  papal  decree  and  the  Synod  of  Trent  alone  did  not 
convey  the  judgment  of  the  catholic  church.  The  Arians  and 
other  ancient  heretics  were  condemned  by  clear  and  undoubted 
decisions  of  the  universal  church,  and  their  only  resource  was 
to  deny  its  authority  and  assert  that  it  was  apostate.  '    , 

IV.  Many  theologians  of  the  reformed  communities  confess 
that  they  separated  themselves  from  the  Roman  church.  Lu- 
ther said,  tb.at  at  the  beginning  he  stood  alone. 

Ansiuer.  They  separated  from  the  errors  commonly  held,  but 
not  from  the  communion  of  the  church  ;  as  archbishop  Laud 
truly  said ;  "  The  protestants  did  not  depart ;  for  departure  is 
voluntary,  so  was  not  theirs.  I  say  not  theirs,  taking  their 
whole  body  and  cause  together.  For  that  some  among  them 
were  peevish,  and  some  ignorantly  zealous,  is  neither  to  be 
doubted,  nor  is  there  danger  in  confessing  it."?  When  Luther 
said  that  he  stood  alone,  he  meant  that  he  was  almost  the  only 


"  Fleury,  liv.  145.  s.  19.  "  Gerdes.  torn.  ii.  p.  296. 

p  Laud,  Conference  with  Fisher,  ^  21.  No.  3. 


366  LUTHERANS  AND  REFORMED.     [P.  I.  CH.  XII. 

person  who  conspicuously,  and  in  the  face  of  the  world,  main- 
tained his  doctrines ;  but  he  knew  that  many  others,  though 
less  conspicuously,  approved  and  defended  them. 

V.  It  is  inconsistent  with  Christian  charity  to  deny  the  Lu- 
theran and  reformed  communities  to  be  churches  of  Christ,  be- 
cause, according  to  the  principles  here  laid  down,  salvation  is 
only  offered  in  the  church,  so  that  the  Protestants  must  be  ex- 
cluded from  salvation.  And  besides  this,  it  is  pronounced 
unlawful  to  separate  from  the  Roman  church,  and  thus  men  are 
encouraged  to  remain  in  the  profession  of  superstition  and  error. 
On  such  principles,  the  Reformation  could  never  have  taken 
place. 

Aiiswer.  (1.)  I  have  shown  that  the  adherents  of  the  Refor- 
mation were  not  in  schism  or  heresy,  therefore  they  were  only 
separated  from  the  external  communion  of  the  church,  and  were 
not  out  of  the  way  of  salvation.  (2.)  While  it  is  maintained  that 
it  would  have  been  unlawful  to  separate  from  the  existing  church, 
it  is  also  affirmed  that  the  truth  should  always  be  supported  and 
advocated,  without  violence  and  uncharitable  zeal ;  and  if,  in 
consequence,  the  rulers  of  the  church,  misled  by  a  false  autho- 
rity, should  excommunicate  one  who  holds  the  truth,  he  is  free 
from  offence,  and  is  not  bound  to  retract,  nor  to  cease  his  exer- 
tions to  be  of  use  to  the  brethren.  Therefore  the  Reformation 
would  not  have  been  impeded  by  the  principles  here  maintained, 
which  in  fact  were  those  of  the  reformers  themselves.  And  if 
they  had  been  able  to  remain  in  the  church,  the  Reformation 
would  probably  have  been  far  more  extensive,  and  would  have 
better  merited  its  name,  for  it  would  have  been  accomplished  in 
a  more  orderly  manner. 

VI.  Several  theologians,  even  of  the  British  churches,  have 
acknowledged  the  Lutherans  and  reformed  to  be  churches  of 
Christ. 

Answer.  I  admit  that  this  opinion  has  been  held  by  some 
writers,  but  they  seem  to  have  been  influenced  by  the  notion, 
that  it  was  necessary  for  the  justification  of  both  the  Protestants 
and  the  British  churches.     However,  scarcely  any  theologian 


OBJECT.]  SEVERAL    DIFFICULTIES.  367 

affirmed  that  these  foreign  communities  were  perfect  in  all 
respects,  according  to  the  institution  of  Christ ;  and  most  of 
those  who  give  them  the  title  of  churches  do  so  in  a  general 
sense,  not  meaning  that  they  are  churches  in  the  strict  sense  of 
the  term. 


CHAPTER  XIII. 

ON    THE    SEPARATISTS    FROM  THE  BRITISH    CHURCHES, 

I  AM  now  to  speak  of  the  societies  which  are  separated  from 
the  communion  of  the  British  chm-ches.  As  I  consider  else- 
where the  character  of  the  Roman  and  the  Scottish  Presbyterian 
communities,  ^^  it  only  remains  here  to  treat  of  the  various  sects 
of  dissent.  Of  these  communities,  whether  collectively  or 
individually  considered,  I  affirm,  that  they  are  no  part  of  the 
church  of  Christ.  This  question  has  been  recently  so  well 
treated  by  many  able  writers,  that  very  little  need  be  said  on  the 
subject. 

SECTION   I. 

ON    THE    ORIGIN    OF    DISSENT. 

The  dissenting  societies  cannot  be  supposed  to  constitute  the 
true  church  of  Christ,  to  the  exclusion  of  the  more  ancient  and 
infinitely  greater  churches  of  the  East  and  West,  the  Lutherans 
and  Calvinists  ;  for  it  has  been  proved,  that  the  church  of  Christ 
must  always  be  morally  universal.^  Now,  dissenting  commu- 
nities only  exist  in  Britain,  in  the  United  States,  and  in  a  few  of 
the  English  colonies.  They  are  unknown  on  the  continent  of 
Europe,  in  Asia,  Africa,  South  America,  that  is,  in  nearly  the 
whole  world.  It  is  impossible  that  a  party  so  small,  so  unknown 
to  the  world  at  large,  can  be  that  "  mountain  filling  the  whole 
earth,"  that  "  city  set  upon  a  hill  which  cannot  be  hid."  Even 
if  we  were  to  add  the  Lutherans  and  Calvinists  to  their  number, 
their  church  would  be  still  unknown  in  the  greatest  part  of  the 
world. 

.     «  Part  II.  Chapter  II.  IX.  ^  Chapter  VII. 


SECT,  I.]  ON    DISSENT.  369 

There  is  another  proof  that  they  cannot  alone  constitute  the 
church  of  Christ.  Whatever  be  their  present  slate,  it  is  certain 
that  about  two  hundred  and  fifty  years  ago,  they  were  entirely 
unknown,  that  they  even  did  not  exist.  We  know  perfectly 
when  these  societies  arose,  and  who  were  their  founders.  We 
know  that  Robinson,  the  author  of  Independency,  lived  in  the 
reign  of  EUzabeth  and  James,  that  Jacobs  founded  the  first 
Congregational  church  about  1616,  that  Jesse  established  the 
first  Baptist  churcli  in  1640.  We  can  tell  when  the  various 
existing  denominations  of  Quakers,  Presbyterians,  Sweden- 
borgians,  Socinians,  Moravians,  Huntingdonians,  Wesleyans, 
Whitfieldites,  Kilhamites,  Jumpers,  Ranters,  the  followers  of 
Johanna  Southcote,  Irtingites,  &c.  first  arose  :  their  origin  is 
comparatively  recent.  If  these  societies  alone  constitute  the 
true  visible  church  of  Christ,  we  should  be  at  a  loss  to  discover 
where  that  church  existed  two  hundred  and  fifty  years  ago. 

It  has  been  proved  that  there  must  always  be  a  visible  and  a 
universal  church  of  Christ  on  earth.  It  is  therefore  in  vain  to 
allege  that  some  individuals  may  have  held  the  truth  in  secret, 
in  the  midst  of  an  apostate  and  anti-christian  church.  This 
would  not  be  any  answer  to  the  question  where  the  visible  church 
of  Christ  existed.  It  would  be  equally  vain  to  attempt  to  trace 
this  visible  church  in  the  various  sects  of  the  Albigenses,  Wal- 
denses,  Wickliffites,  Hussites,  Anabaptists,  &c.:  for,  indepen- 
dently of  the  fact  that  none  of  these  societies  possessed  the 
antiquity  and  universality  of  the  church  of  Christ,  the  dissent- 
ing communities  now  existing  cannot  trace  their  descent  from, 
nor  their  communion  with,  these  more  ancient  sects. 

Hence,  we  may  not  unreasonably  conclude,  that  the  various 
denominations  of  separatists  cannot  constitute  the  church  of 
Christ,  to  the  exclusion  of  other  greater  and  more  ancient  so- 
cieties :  and,  what  has  been  observed  of  them  collectively, 
applies  of  course  still  more  strongly  to  each  of  them  in  par- 
ticular. 

It  must  be  admitted  then,  that  the  dissenters  can  only  form 

a  small  portion  of  the  church  of  Christ,  if  they  belong  to  it  at 
VOL.  I. — 47 


370  ON  DISSENT.  [p.  I.  CH.  XIII. 

all.  We  must  look  elsewhere  for  the  great  majority  of  that 
church  ;  and  since,  even  the  Lutheran  and  Calvinistic  societies, 
in  addition  to  the  dissenters,  would  not  take  up  a  church  such 
as  the  Scripture  points  out ;  the  more  ancient  societies  of  the 
Greek,  if  not  of  the  Roman  communion,  must  be  added. 
Now,  if  it  be  conceded,  that  the  Greek  or  Latin  churches,  and 
the  Lutheran  and  Calvinistic  societies  are  parts  of  the  catholic 
visible  church,  it  is  impossible  to  exclude  the  British  churches 
from  the  same  privilege  ;  for  there  is  nothing  objected  to  them 
by  dissenters,  which  might  not  be  equally  objected  to  all  the 
other  ancient  churches  of  the  East  and  West,  and  to  the  Lu- 
therans and  Calvinists,  All  are  more  or  less  established,  and 
influenced  by  the  civil  magistrate.  None  of  them  are  modelled 
according  to  the  congregational  form.  In  none  are  the  clergy 
elected  or  deposed  by  the  suffrage  of  the  people.  All  have 
rites  and  ceremonies  of  human  invention,  imposed  by  human 
authority,  creeds,  articles  of  faith,  confessions,  liturgies,  &c. 
It  is  therefore  impossible,  in  admitting  that  the  Lutherans, 
Greeks,  &c.  are  part  of  the  church,  to  deny  that  our  churches 
are  also  churches  of  Christ. 

If  then  the  British  churches  continue  to  be  churches  of 
Christ,  even  to  the  present  time  ;  they  must  have  been  so  when 
these  various  communities  separated  from  them,  and  consti- 
tuted a  rival  worship.  But  I  have  already  proved  that  separa- 
tion from  a  Christian  church  is  incapable  of  excuse,  that  no 
reason  can  possibly  justify  it,  and  that  the  society  so  formed 
by  such  an  act  of  separation  is  entirely  cut  off  from  Christian 
unity  and  from  the  true  church  of  Christ. ° 

This  fixes  ineflfaceably  the  mark  of  schism  on  the  origin  of 
all  those  communities,  which  separated  themselves  from  the 
British  churches.  For  they  not  only  separated  themselves 
from  this  branch  of  the  visible  catholic  church,  but  did  so  on 
principles  which  involved  separation  from  every  other  part  of 
the  church  equally  ;    and   accordingly  they  held  communion 

"^  Chapter  IV.  sect.  ii. 


SECT.  I.]  FOUNDED  IN  SCHISM  AND  HERESY.  371 

with  no  church  which  existed  previously  to  their  separation, 
nor  were  they  acknowledged  afterwards  by  any  ancient  church 
as  a  portion  of  the  church  of  Christ. 

The  first  separatists  from  the  church  of  England  maintained 
that  her  forms  of  government,  and  her  ritual  were  idolatrous 
and  Antichristian,  and  that  in  consequence  she  was  not  a  church 
of  Christ,  but  a  synagogue  of  Satan,  from  which  they  were 
bound  to  come  forth. "^  The  conclusion  followed  of  course  from 
their  principle  ;  but  that  principle  condemned  as  Antichristian, 
not  merely  the  existing  church  of  England,  but  all  other 
churches  for  many  ages,  even  up  to  the  time  of  the  apostles. 
On  this  principle  then  the  church  must  have  entirely  failed 
for  several  ages  ;  a  position  which  is  decidedly  heretical  and 
Antichristian. 

They  denied  her  to  be  a  true  church  because  her  commmu- 
nion  comprises  sinners,  and  maintained  the  duty  of  separating 
from  her  on  this  account.*"  On  the  same  principle  they  must 
have  held  it  a  duty  to  have  separated  from  every  Christian 
community  for  many  centuries  previously,  and  thus  again 
denied  the  perpetuity  of  the  church  of  Christ. 

The  same  may  be  said  of  their  plea  for  separation,  grounded 
on  the  pretence,  that  the  imposition  of  creeds,  articles  of  faith, 
rites,  ceremonies,  &c.  by  authority  of  the  church,  was  an  act 
of  rebellion  against  the  sole  authority  of  Christ,  as  king  and 


^  Stillingfleet's  Unreasonableness  of  Separation,  Works,  vol.  ii.  p.  481 
— 483.  549.  Brown,  in  his  book  on  the  Life  and  Manners  of  the  Chris- 
tians, (1582),  asserts  that  the  English  church  government  is  "  Antichi-is- 
tian,"  that  the  clergy  "  enchant "  the  bread  and  wine  by  graces  and  prayers, 
make  an  idol  of  it,  &c.  The  Apology  of  the  Brownists  (1604)  maintained 
that  the  church's  government  and  worship  were  Antichristian  (art.  29,  30), 
that  the  English  is  not  a  part  of  the  Christian  church  (art.  31),  that  "  all 
who  will  be  saved  are  bound  to  come  forth  of  this  Antichristian  church" 
(32),  that  it  was  the  duty  of  the  civil  magistrate  to  suppress  and  root  out 
the  ministry  of  the  church  and  apply  its  property  to  civil  uses,  and  to  es- 
tablish and  maintain  by  law  the  true  religion  (39).  See  also  Neal's  Puri- 
tans, vol.  i.  c.  4,  5,  6. 

*  Owen's  True  Nature  of  a  Gospel  Church. 


372  ON    DISSENT.  [p.  I.  Cn.  XIII. 

legislator  in  his  church.^  This  had  been  notoriously  practised 
by  all  Christian  churches  from  the  earliest  ages,  consequently 
the  church  of  Christ  must  have  been  apostate  and  entirely 
failed,  until  the  dissenters  arose  in  the  seventeenth  century  ;  a 
position  wrhich  is  equally  absurd  and  heretical. 

Therefore  their  separation  from  the  church  of  England  was 
founded  not  only  in  schism  but  in  heresy,  and  this  being  the 
case,  they  could  not  have  been  any  part  of  the  church  of  Christ, 
nor  were  they  capable  of  forming  Christian  churches. 


SECTION  II. 

ON    DISSENTING    PRINCIPLES    AS   AFFECTING    UNITY. 

I  shall  not  here  dwell  on  the  actual  existence  of  divisions, 
separations,  and  heresies  among  dissenters,  because  every  sys- 
tem is  occasionally  abused,  and  such  evils  may  not  be  its  proper 
result,  but  may  arise  from  the  violation  of  its  principles.  Yet 
it  must  be  confessed,  that  the  religious  disorganization  of  dis- 
sent is  something  extraordinary  and  unprecedented.  One  of 
themselves  admits  that  "  the  most  remarkable  and  flagrant  cir- 
cumstance that  fixes  the  attention  of  the  Christian  philosopher, 
is  the  inveterate  and  incurable  sectarism  that  distinguishes  our 
British  Christianity.  No  people  of  any  age  or  climate  have 
carried  the  evil  of  religious  faction  and  endless  division  to  a 
more  extraordinary  height.  No  religious  evil  (in  the  present 
day)  more  resolutely  defies  correction  than  the  evil  of  schism."^ 
These  remarks  are  perfectly  true  :  but  dissenters  persuade 
themselves  that  the  evil  does  not  arise  from  their  own  princi- 
ples. "Can  it  be  shown,"  they  say,  "that  the  tendency  of 
the  congregational  system  is  to  generate  and  foster  the  evils 
under  review  ?"i'     I  say,  it  can  be  clearly  shown.     The  dis- 

(  Towgood  on  Dissent. 

e  Eclectic  Review  for  1831,  p.  192. 

^  Library  of  Eccl.  Knowledge,  vol.  ii.     On  Ch.  Polity,  p.  171.  ,      , 


SECT.  I.]        DISSENTING  PRINCIPLES  FOSTER  SCHISM.  373 

senting  system,  \he principle  of  dissent,  is  exactly  the  cause  of 
all  their  divisions ;  it  leads  necessarily  to  tumult,  division,  sepa- 
ration, heresy  without  limit ;  it  leads  to  the  conclusion  that  schism 
is  altogether  inoffensive  and  may  be  made  a  matter  of  joke  ;  and 
it  actually  leads  to  the  adoption  of  this  Antichristian  principle 
into  their  system,  as  highly  salutary,  and  even  essential  to  its 
proper  working. 

According  to  them,  a  church  is  a  voluntary  spciety  of  pro- 
fessing saints,  which  is  complete  in  itself,  subject  to  no  juris- 
diction but  its  own,  competent  to  make  and  execute  its  own 
laws,  acknowledging  no  rule  but  Scripture,  and  possessing  the 
ability  to  ascertain  its  directions.  The  voice  of  the  society  de- 
cides everything,  every  measure  is  proposed  and  discussed, 
and  the  majority  determines  the  matter.'  Such  is  the  system 
and  principle  of  dissent :  whence  it  is  clear  that  frequent  dis- 
cussion, debate,  voting,  are  essential  to  it,  and  therefore  there 
must  be  a  perpetual  excitement  to  anger,  jealousy,  party-spirit, 
ambition,  and  to  all  the  elements  of  division.  And  these  con- 
tending elements  are  pent  up  in  each  little  community  and  com- 
pelled to  ferment  there,  because  no  external  authority  whatever 
is  allowed.  Nor  is  this  all.  It  is  the  principle  of  dissenters, 
that  no  human  authority  can  be  admitted  in  rehgious  matters.'' 
Therefore  the  minority  in  any  question  in  their  churches  cannot 
feel  it  their  duty  to  yield  to  the  majority,  because  the  judgment 
of  that  majority  is  merely  human  ;  and  hence  it  follows  that  dis- 
cussions among  them  are  interminable  except  by  a  total  separa- 
tion. Voluntary  separation  or  dissolution  of  their  societies  is 
in  short  their  only  remedy  against  violent  explosions  ;  and  in- 
jurious as  it  is  to  their  interests  and  character,  they  are  com- 
pelled by  the  original  vice  of  their  system  to  look  with  hope  to  so 
fatal  a  remedy.  It  will  be  remembered  that  Christ  commanded 
his  disciples  to  love  one  another,  and  prayed  that  they  might  be 
perfectly  one  ;  and  that  St.  Paul  exhorted  Christians  to  be  per- 


'  Binney's  Life  of  Morrell,  p.  VM,  135. 

^  Towgood  on  Dissent.     Library  of  Eccl.  Knowledge,  vol.  ii.  p.  314. 


374  ON    DISSENT.  [p.  I.  CH.  XIII. 

fectly  united,  and  that  there  should  be  no  divisions  among  them.^ 
*'  The  system  of  congregational  churches  (I  quote  the  words  of 
a  dissenter)  is  totally  different.  From  them  any  member,  or 
any  number  of  members,  is  at  liberty  to  withdraw  whenever 
they  think  it  their  duty,  without  incurring  any  censure  or  pro- 
voking any  resentment.  .  .  .  Peaceable  and  Christian  separa- 
tion, when  separation  becomes  inevitable  or  expedient,  is  the 
MAXIM  of  the  congregational  system  :  and  it  has  always  been 
found  to  be,  not  only  a  sufficient  safety-valve  for  the  occasional 
disturbances  of  the  churches,  but  a  means  of  rendering  those 
very  disturbances  conducive  to  the  extension  of  Christianity,"™ 

Thus  we  see  the  principle  of  schism  and  separation  enshrin- 
ed as  a  maxim  of  dissent ;  and  accordingly  we  need  not 
wonder  to  find  Owen  and  Towgood,  and  other  dissenters,  ridi- 
culing those  who  deliver  solemn  lectures  on  the  sin  of  schism, 
and  joking  about  schism  as  a  mere  "  ecclesiastical  scarecrow.""^ 
According  to  them,  "  separation  between  different  Christian 
bodies,  which  agree  in  holding  the  head,  but  do  not  accord  in 
lesser  matters,  is  an  affair  of  expediency ; — within  certain  limits 
it  seems  really  conducive  to  edification.""  It  is  clear  then,  that 
the  principle  of  division  is  a  principle  of  dissent ;  and  there- 
fore their  community  cannot  form  any  portion  of  the  church  of 
Christ. 

It  is  their  principle  to  reject  all  human  authority  in  matters 
of  religion  ;  and  they  profess  to  separate  from  the  church,  be- 
cause she  imposes  creeds  and  articles  of  faith  :  therefore  if  a 
dissenter  embraces  some  heresy,  he  cannot  yield  to  the  con- 


1  See  Chapter  IV. 

™  Library  of  Eccl.  Knowledge,  vol.  ii.  p.  167. 

n  Owen  sneers  at  "  the  old  opinion  of  the  unlawfulness  of  separation 
from  a  church,"  as  a  "  scarecrow  to  frighten  men  with."— Gospel  Church, 
p.  27.  Towgood  also  represents  it  as  "  an  ecclesiastical  scarecrow  to  keep 
the  simple  in  awe."— On  Dissent,  p.  115.  It  is  awful  to  remember  ivhose 
injunctions  are  here  sneered  at. 

o  Library  of  Eccl.  Knowledge,  vol.  ii.  118. 


SECT.  II.]  HAS  NO  REMEDY  AGAINST  HERESY.  375 

trary  judgment  of  his  own  community,  or  of  all  Christians  in 
the  world,  now  and  in  all  former  ages  :  nor  can  a  congrega- 
tional society  admonish  him  to  turn  from  his  error  on  pain  of 
expulsion,  because  this  would  be  precisely  that  very  assump- 
tion of  authority  in  matters  of  religion,  which  dissent  exclaims 
against  in  the  church.  There  is  therefore  no  provision  for  the 
maintenance  of  the  Christian  truth  amongst  them. 

According  to  their  principle,  a  church  is  a  mere  voluntary 
association.  The  motive  for  entering  it,  is  the  opinion  of  the 
individual,  that  it  will  be  conducive  to  his  edification  to  do  so. 
He  is  equally  at  liberty  to  depart  from  it  when  he  judges  it  ex- 
pedient.p  From  the  voluntary  principle  of  their  associations, 
they  argue  that,  like  all  other  clubs,  societies,  &c.,  they  must 
possess  the  absolute  power  of  regulating  their  own  affairs, 
appointing  their  servants  or  ministers,  directing,  controlling, 
paying,  dismissing  them.  An  infringement  on  any  of  these 
privileges  they  regard  as  an  invasion  of  their  indefeasible  rights. 
Certainly  this  reasoning  is  perfectly  correct,  and  founded  on  a 
sort  of  silent  estimate  of  the  real  character  of  dissenting  com- 
munities. They  a.re  human  societies.  The  will  of  man  makes 
them,  regulates  them,  unmakes  them.  They  are,  in  a  word, 
purely  voluntary  associations  ;  and  therefore  cannot  be  any  part 
of  that  church  which  is  formed  by  the  divine  command,  and  by 
means  instituted  by  God,  and  from  which  man  cannot  separate 
without  most  grievous  sin. 


SECTION  III. 

ON  DISSENTING  PRINCIPLES  AS  AFFECTING  THE  SANCTITY 

OF  THE  CHURCH. 

In  a  preceding  chapter  (VI.)  I  have  alluded  to  one  of  the  most 
prominent  and  essential  principles  of  dissent ;  namely,  that  the 


p  Owen,  p.  47. 


376  ON   DISSENT.  [p.  I.  CH.  XIII. 

visible  church  of  Christ  consists  of  saints  only.  As  they  say  : 
"  The  very  basis  of  our  church  union  is  regeneration  and  holi- 
ness, evinced  by  the  proper  evidences  in  those  persons  who  are 
admitted  into  (church)  membership."''  "  Religious  communi- 
ties of  the  congregational  order  are  not  only  congregations,  they 
are  congregations  of  persons  professing  to  be  of  a  peculiar,  that 
is,  of  a  religious  character  ....  this  is  an  essential  point  in 
the  congregational  system,  and  one,  apart  from  which  it  would 
lose  all  its  value,  and  even  its  entire  character."''  "  It  is  a  pro- 
minent feature  of  congregational  churches,  that  they  aim  at 
comprehending  none  but  persons  of  real  piety.  Every  mem- 
ber of  them  is  to  be  supposed,  therefore,  to  possess  that  adap- 
tation to  right  judgment,  of  which  we  have  been  speaking. 
Superior  to  the  blindness  of  a  carnal  man,  and  delivered  from 
the  influence  of  worldly  passions,  his  opinions  may  reasonably 
be  regarded  as  enlightened  and  wise."^ 

The  design  and  intention  therefore  of  dissenters  is,  to  admit 
none  but  really  regenerate  and  holy  men  into  their  churches ; 
but  in  adopting  this  notion,  they  were  obliged  to  devise  a  new 
method  of  admission  into  the  church,  different  from  what  Jesus 
Christ  had  appointed. 

Christ  had  commanded  his  apostles  to  "  teach  (or  disciple)  all 
nations,  baptizing  them  ;"  and  declared  that  "  he  that  believeth 
and  is  baptized,  shall  be  saved  ;"'  thus  intimating  that  believers 
should,  by  baptism,  be  fully  and  perfectly  made  his  disciples,' 
and  enter  on  the  way  of  salvation  in  his  church.  The  evange- 
list had  declared  that  "  they  that  gladly  received  the  word  were 
baptized,  and  the  same  day  were  added  about  three  thousand 
souls  ;"  subjoining,  that  "  the  Lord  added  to  the  church  daily 
such  as  should  be  saved,"*^  thereby  instructing  us  that  the  way 
in  which  men  were  added  to  the  church  was  by  baptism.  The 
apostle  had  said  :  "  As  many  of  you  as  have  been  baptized  into 


•i  Library  of  Eccl.  Knowledge,  vol.  ii,  p.  399. 

r  Ibid.  p.  146,  147.  »  Ibid.  p.  163. 

'  Matt,  xxviii,  19.  Mark  xvi.  16.  "  Acts  ii.  41.  47. 


SECT.  III.]    DISSENT  ALTERS  THE  DISCIPLINE  OF  CHRIST.  377 

Christ,  have  put  on  Christ ye  are  all  one  in   Christ 

Jesus  ;"''  intimating  that  in  baptism  they  were  engrafted  into 
Christ's  body,  the  church.  They  were  thus  by  lawful  baptism 
made  members  of  the  whole  Christian  fraternity,  and  conse- 
quently of  that  portion  of  it  in  which  they  abode  ;  and  though 
they  might  not  interfere  with  the  particular  concerns  of  other 
portions  of  the  church,  because  this  would  have  been  contrary 
to  the  law  of  order  and  peace  throughout  Christianity,  they  had 
a  right  to  all  the  offices  of  fraternity  and  spiritual  consolation 
from  every  part  of  the  church  which  they  might  visit,  and  to 
every  privilege  of  that  portion  in  which  they  abode. 

But  the  only  conditions  for  baptism  were  repentance  and 
faith.  There  was  no  mention  of  regeneration,  sanctity,  real 
piety,  whether  visible  or  invisible,  as  pre-requisites  to  its  recep- 
tion. Those  who  were  baptized,  came  to  the  holy  fountain  as 
repentant  sinners,  not  as  professing  saints  :  "  Arise,  and  be  bap- 
tized, and  wash  away  thy  sinsT  "The  publican  and  the  harlot, 
the  unjust,  the  scorner,  the  persecutor,  the  idolater,  he  whose 
sins  were  as  red  as  scarlet,  were  all  internally  qualified  by  re- 
pentance and  faith,  and  externally  by  the  profession  of  both,  for 
that  divine  and  holy  mystery. 

Such  a  system  could  never  compose  a  church  of  professing 
saints  only ;  and  more  especially  when  all  new  members  were 
added  to  the  church  by  baptism  in  their  infancij,  it  would  have 
been  impossible  that  the  church  should  consist  only  of  real 
saints,  if  baptism  had  been  recognized  any  longer  as  the  mode 
of  admission  into  it. 

Accordingly,  the  dissenters  found  it  necessary  to  devise  a  new 
method  of  their  own  for  admitting  members  into  their  church, 
distinct  altogether  from  baptism.  But  let  us  contemplate  for  a 
moment,  the  difficulties  into  which  the  devious  path  of  error, 
led  them. 

They  themselves  could  not  deny  in  the  face  of  Scripture  that, 
after  all,  baptism  did,  in  some  way  or  other,  introduce  members 


'  Gal.  iii.  27,  28. 
VOL.  I. — 48 


378  ON    DISSENT.  [p,  I.  CH.  XIII.. 

into  the  church  of  Christ.  Now,  at  least  it  must  have  made  them 
members  of  the  visible  church,  and  this  is  expressly  admitted 
by  Owen,  their  chief  writer,  who  speaks  of  "baptizing  the  chil- 
dren of  church-members,  giving  them  thereby  an  admission  into 
the  visible  catholic  church."'"  Baptism  then  admitted  into  the 
visible  catholic  church,  but  baptism  did  not  admit  into  the  dis- 
senting churches  of  professing  saints,  therefore  the  latter  form 
no  part  of  the  catholic  church  of  Christ.'^ 

Nor  is  this  all :  whoever  has  been  once  lawfully  baptized,  and 
thus  made  a  member  of  Christ's  body,  the  church,  cannot  by  any 
subsequent  rite  or  transaction  whatever,  be  introduced  into  that 
church. y  Such  a  rite  must  be  entirely  null  and  void  :  while  he 
who  seeks  for  a  new  admission  to  the  visible  church,  by  that 
very  act  renounces  his  former  admission  to  it  in  baptism,  denies 
and  tramples  under  foot  the  privileges  which,  by  the  divine  ap- 
pointment, are  connected  with  it ;  and  as  he  cannot  be  introduced 
again  into  the  church  by  the  vain  and  impious  ceremony  by  which 
men  dare  to  supersede  the  effects  of  baptism,  he  falls  headlong 
from  the  church  of  Christ. 

But  let  us  consider  the  operation  of  this  principle  on  Christian 
sanctity.^     It  is  the  manifest  aim  and  intention  of  the  dissenting 

w  Owen's  Gospel  Church,  p.  50. 

^  [This  argument  seems  liable  to  objection,  as  a  non  sequitur.  It  only 
proves  the  societies  in  question  not  to  constitute  the  xchole  of  the  catholic 
church,  inasmuch  as  they  may,  and  profess  to  be  constituted  within  the 
limits  of  the  church,  by  an  addition  of  other  requisites. 

It  may  be  thus  amended.  The  catholic  church  is  made  up  of  individual 
churches,  into  M'hich  men  are  admitted  by  baptism.  The  societies  which 
do  not  admit  to  membership  by  baptism,  are  not  such  churches,  therefore 
they  are  not  parts  of  the  catholic  church. 

On  the  contrary,  their  very  constitution  is  an  abnegation  of  the  catholic 
church,  by  an  impracticable,  if  not  profane,  attempt  to  give  visibility  to  the 
invisible  body  of  the  elect.] 

y  [Such  an  attempt  at  convey al  of  church-membership  should  be  carefully 
distinguished  from  the  recognition  of  church-membership  on  renewal  of  the 
baptismal  profession,  which  takes  place  in  confirmation.] 

'^  [«.  e.  the  oo-MTxc  of  the  Christian  man.     See  note  e  on  p.  138.] 


•SECT.  111.]       DISSENTING  PRINCIPLES  ENGENDER  PRIDE.  379 

community  to  admit  none  but  "  real  saints,"  persons  regenerate, 
sanctified,  of  a  peculiar  and  exalted  religious  character.     Such 
is  their  intention,  and  therefore  they  inquire  by  every  possible 
means,  including  personal  examination  of  the  candidate's  "  ex- 
perience," whether  he  be  really  possessed  of  these  distinguished 
qualifications.     Therefore  no  person  can  enter  a  dissenting  com- 
munity without  hypocrisy,  unless  he  believes  and  professes  him- 
self to  be  a  saint!     He  must  believe  himself  to  be  a  regenerate, 
really  pious,  sanctified  man,   superior  to  the  blindness  of  the 
flesh,    free  from  the  influence  of  earthly  passion  ;  in   short,  a 
genuine  saint !     Surely  modesty  and  humility  were  not  to  be 
altogether  strangers  to  Christianity,  yet  they  are  utterly  ban- 
ished by  the  dissenting  principle  of  admission  into  the  church  ; 
for  he  who  proposes  himself  as  a  member  of  their  community, 
knowing  that  none  but  real  saints  are  to  be  admitted,  knowing 
that  the  most  rigid  examination  is  to  be  instituted  as  to  his  re- 
generation, sanctity,  real  piety,  &c.,  such  a  man,  I  say,  must 
have  a  most  perfect  and  singular  assurance  and  self-satisfaction, 
he  must  "  think  more  highly  of  himself  than  he  ought  to  think." 
His  feeling  and  his  language  must  literally  be :  "  God,  I  thank  thee 
that  I  am  not  as  other  men  are,  extortioners,  unjust,  adulterers, 
or  even  as  this  publican."     The  Church  is  more  humble,  and 
instructs  each  of  her  children  to  say  from  the  bottom  of  his 
heart,  "  God  be  merciful  to  me  a  sinner." 

The  adoption  of  the  principle  that  none  but  real  saints  were 
to  be  admitted  into  the  church,  led  them  of  course  to  condemn 
the  church  of  England  as  acting  on  a  different  principle,  and 
admitting  persons  of  all  sorts  and  ages  to  become  her  members 
by  baptism.     This  appeared  intolerable  to  dissenters  :  they  se- 
parated from  a  church  so  "  Antichristian,"  and  in  the  same  act 
separated  from  every  existing  Christian  community  in  the  world, 
and  condemned  llic  universal  church  of  Christ  in  all  past  ages. 
Tiiey  were  now  to  form  a  pure  society  of  saints,  a  city  set  upon 
a  hill,  a  light  shining  amidst  the  darkness  of  universal  Christian- 
ity.    This  was  on  all  accounts  a  perilous  undertaking,  and  one 
of  its  peculiar  dangers  is  well  pointed  out  by  a  dissenting  writer. 


,9V 


380  ON  DISSENT.  [p.  I,  CH.  XIII. 

"  By  the  fact  of  our  select  association,"  he  says,  "  we  intimate 
both  our  conviction  that  a  change  of  character  is  necessary,  and 
our  hope  that  we  have  experienced  it  .  .  .  but  if,  while  we  pro- 
fess to  be  so  materially  diverse  from  others,  that  for  the  purpose 
of  religious  association  we  are  constrained  to  separate  from  them, 
we  are  yet  so  much  like  them,  that  little  or  no  difference  is  per- 
ceptible ;  we  do  mischief  rather  than  good  ;  we  falsify  the  les- 
son which  our  profession  is  adapted  to  inculcate,  and  turn  our 
profession  itself  into  inconsistency  and  ridicule."'^  This  is  a 
true  picture  of  the  failure  of  the  dissenting  schemes  of  the  church. 
That  high  theory  of  sanctity  which  led  them  to  separate  from 
the  church  of  Christ,  has  been  unhappily  nothing  but  a  theory. 
It  has  been  proved  an  impossibility  by  experience.  Dissent- 
ing communities  are  just  like  the  rest  of  the  world,  troubled 
with  immoralities,  by  no  means  elevated  above  the  usual  level 
in  point  of  sanctity,  and  remarkable  for  nothing  but  divisions, 
party-spirit,  and  the  indefatigable  assertion  and  pursuit  of  their 
own  rights  and  interests.  "  Hence,"  as  the  same  writer  observes, 
"  the  force  of  our  profession  itself  is  materially  diminished,  and 
almost  annihilated."''  Yet,  strange  to  say,  though  experience 
has  verified  the  Scriptural  doctrine  on  this  subject,  which  the 
church  has  always  maintained,''  the  opposite  doctrine  of  a  per- 
fect sanctity  which  excludes  all  sinners,  remains  to  this  day 
one  of  the  main  principles  of  dissent,  and  is  as  much  insisted 
on  as  if  nothing  had  ever  happened  to  refute  it.  So  difficult  is 
it  for  men  who  are  once  involved  in  a  false  system,  to  escape 
from  its  entanglements. 


a  Library  of  Eccl.  Knowledge,  vol.  ii.  p.  189. 

"  Ibid.  c  Chapter  VI. 


SECT.  IV.]  NOT  APOSTOLICAL.  381- 


SECTION  IV. 


DISSENT    NOT    APOSTOLICAL. 


Dissenting  communities  cannot  be  derived  from  the  apostles, 
for  they  were  heard  of  for  the  first  time  in  the  seventeenth  and 
eighteenth  centuries  after  Christ,  and  were  not  then  peaceably- 
derived  from  any  society  of  apostolical  foundation,   nor  after- 
wards acknowledged  by  any  such  as  a  portion  of  the  church 
of  Christ."^     In  addition  to  this,  it  is  easy  to  see  that  their 
ministry  is  not  apostolical.     They  themselves  ridicule  the  no- 
tion of  any  divine  commission  to  minister  in  sacred  things, 
derived   by   successive   ordinations   from    the  apostles.     The 
claim  of  the  church  to  such  a  commission  for  her  ministers, 
is  matter  of  unceasing  vituperation  and  scorn  with  dissenters. 
Of  course,  therefore,  their  own  ministers   cannot  pretend  to 
such  a  commission.     But  after  all,  it  is  pretty  plain  that  they 
are  obliged,  whether   willingly   or   unwillingly,  to  adopt  this 
course  ;   for  their  founders,  or  some   of  their  first   ministers, 
were  generally  laymen  who  usurped  the  power  of  the  ministry, 
and  pretended  to  ordain  others  to  an  office  which  they  had  not 
themselves  received   by    any  imposition   of  hands    from   the 
ministers  of  Christ.     The  Quakers  have  no  ministry.     The 
Wesley ans  have  or  had  no  ordinations  by  imposition  of  hands. 
In  fine,  the  Independents  and  others  pretend  that  no  ordination 
whatever  is  requisite,  and   many  of  them  have    no  vocation 
except  from  mere  popular  election.     It  is,  indeed,  one  of  their 
principles  that  the  ministers  of  religion  derive  their  vocation 
and  mission  entirely  from  popular  election.     The  right  of  the 
people  to  elect,    pay,  control,  and  dismiss  their  teachers,    is 
argued  from  the  nature  of  a  voluntary  association  or  club,  which 
must  necessarily  have  the  power  of  appointing  its  own  officers 
and  regulating  their  whole  conduct.     And  as  every  officer  of 


■*  See  Chapter  VI.  sect.  i.     Chapter  VIII. 


382  ON    DISSENT.  [p.  I.  CII.  XIII. 

a  voluntary  association  or  club,  derives  his  commission  entirely 
from  those  who  create  him,  so  the  dissenting  minister  is  com- 
missioned to  preach  the  Gospel  not  by  God,  but  by  man.  He 
is  the  minister  of  man  only,  and  therefore  the  dissenting  com- 
munities being  destitute  of  a  true  ministry  which  is  essential 
to  the  church,*'  are  not  churches  of  Christ.  I  shall  add  nothing 
more  in  a  case  so  easy  and  clear. ^ 


OBJECTIONS. 

I.  The  church  of  England  cannot  charge  the  dissenters  with 
schism  for  separating  from  her,  for  they  only  exercised  the  same 
right  which  she  claimed  for  herself  in  separating  from  the 
church  of  Rome. 

Answer.  I  deny  that  the  church  of  England  ever  separated 
herself  from  the  communion  of  the  Roman  church  :?  the  latter 
merely  estranged  herself  from  us  under  the  prejudice  that  it 
was  necessary  for  every  one  to  be  subject  to  the  papal  jurisdic- 
tion, and  therefore  that  our  suppression  of  that  jurisdiction  in 
England  was  schismatical.  The  dissenters,  on  the  other  hand, 
withdrew  themselves  from  the  communion  of  the  church  in 
which  they  had  been  baptized.  The  church  of  Britain  had 
existed  in  communion  with  the  universal  church  for  fifteen 
hundred  years  before  the  dispute  took  place  between  her  and 
the  pontiff.  The  societies  of  dissenters  could  not  have  existed 
in  any  such  communion  before  their  separation  from  us,  for  that 
separation  alone  gave  them  existence.     The  church  of  Britain 

e  Chapter  VIII.  sect.  i. 

''  The  argument  against  dissent  has  been  treated  by  Stillingfleet  in  his 
Unreasonableness  of  Separation.  See  also  Articles  on  Dissent  in  the  Bri- 
tish Magazine  for  May,  June,  July,  1832  :  on  the  Church,  June,  1833  ; 
and  on  the  Congregational  Union,  September,  1833  ;  Mr.  Gathercole's 
Letters  to  a  Dissenting  Minister  ;  Dr.  Whitaker's  Letters  to  Mr.  Eccles ; 
Mr.  Maitland  on  the  Voluntary  System. 

p  See  Part.  II.  Chapter  II. 


OBJECT.]  CONTRAST  WITH  THE   CHURCH.  \        383 

only  revived  her  ancient  privileges  and  liberties  which  had  been 
usurped  by  the  Roman  pontiff,  or  allowed  by  her  to  devolve 
to  him  ;  and  she  had  for  this  purpose  the  ordinary  spiritual  au- 
thority instituted  by  Jesus  Christ.  The  dissenters  had  no 
ancient  riffhts,  as  their  societies  had  never  existed  before  their 
separation  from  the  church  of  England,  and  they  neither  had 
nor  claimed  any  spiritual  authority,  but  rested  their  cause  on 
the  supposed  rights  of  conscience,  in  opposition  to  authority. 
The  church  justifies  her  reformation  without  imputing  such 
errors  or  crimen  to  the  universal  church,  before  the  separa- 
tion, as  would  prove  it  apostate  and  Antichristian.  The  dis- 
senters can  only  justify  their  own  existence  by  maintaining  that 
the  church  of  Christ  had  apostatized  and  entirely  failed. 

It  is  really  astonishing  that  any  one  can  venture  to  compare 
the  reformation  of  the  church  of  England  to  the  separation  of 
the  dissenters.  There  cannot  be  a  stronger  contrast  than  is 
afforded  by  the  two  cases. 

II.  The  church  of  England  has  transgressed  in  several 
respects  the  law  of  Christ,  in  acknowledging  the  king's  supre- 
macy, imposing  creeds  and  articles  of  faith,  establishing  super- 
stitious rites,  &c.  Consequently  it  was  necessary  to  forsake 
her  communion. 

Answer.  I  have  shown  above^  that  separation  from  the  church 
is  inexcusable,  and  have  answered  these  various  objections  of 
dissenters.' 

III.  There  may  be  separation  without  schism,  because 
Christians  may  be  united  in  heart  and  spirit,  though  the  offices 
of  religion  are  performed  in  different  places  of  worship. 

Ansioer.  Christ  commanded  his  disciples  to  be  perfectly 
united,  that  the  world  might  believe  that  the  Father  had  sent 
him  (John  xvii.  20.  23) ;  therefore  even  schism  within  the 
church  is  contrary  to  his  will :  but  open  separation  from  it  is 
a  manifest  disobedience  to  God.     And  when  separate  conven- 


''  [Pages  75  and  79.]  i  [Page  245,  &c.] 


384  ON    DISSENT.  [p.   I.  CH.  XIII. 

tides  are  established,  and  rival  ministers  endeavour  to  gain 
proselytes  from  the  church,  declaring  its  worship,  its  govern- 
ment, its  regulations  so  unscriptural  or  erroneous,  that  Chris- 
tians are  bound  to  come  forth  from  it  and  be  separate  ;  Mrhat 
plea  can  be  vainer  than  the  pretence  of  an  internal  communion 
of  aifections,  v^^hich  is  disproved  by  every  act  ? 


CHAPTER  XIV. 

ON  THE  NESTORIANS  AND  MONOPHYSITES. 

These  ancient  sects,  which  were  separated  from  the  com- 
munion of  our  churches  and  from  the  rest  of  the  cathohc  church, 
in  the  fifth  century  ;  still  continue  to  exist  in  Egypt,  Abyssinia, 
Syria,  Armenia,  and  some  other  parts  of  the  East ;  and  it 
seems  to  be  the  opinion  of  some  respectable  modern  writers, 
that  they  are  not  to  be  excluded  from  the  Christian  church. 
Fricius,  Jewel,  Usher,  and  Laud  are  apparently  of  this  opinion, 
and  Field  expressly  maintains  it.^"  The  arguments  by  which  it 
is  supported,  are  derived  either  from  the  supposition  that  these 
sects  believe  the  fundamental  articles  of  Christian  faith,  or  that 
their  difference  with  the  church  is  rather  verbal  than  real.  It 
does  not^appear  to  me,  however,  that  there  is  any  reason  to  alter 
our  opinion  of  these  sects,  from  that  which  the  universal  church 
maintained  for  so  niany  ages.^ 


"  Of  the  Church,  book  iii.  chapter  i. 

b  [The  author  has  dealt  over-hastily  with  an  opinion  held  by  such  divines 
as  Jewel,  Field,  and  Laud.  A  more  thorough  examination  of  the  question 
would  possibly  have  raised  doubts  whether  Nestorius  and  the  churches  now 
named  from  him,  (but  steadily  refusing  the  appellation,)  are  to  be  regarded 
as  justly  condemned  heretics. 

1.  The  Nestorians,  and  those  even  among  the  Romish  divines  who  have 
most  accurately  examined  the  question,  agree  that  the  difference  between 
their  tenets  and  the  definitions  of  the  Council  of  Ephesus,  is  "  rather  ver- 
bal than  real."  It  might,  therefore,  have  been  tolerated,  and  may  exist 
without  heresy,  our  author  being  judge.     (Part  i.  ch.  ix.  sect.  2.  No.  7.) 

2.  Nestorius,  tq,his  latest  breath,  and  the  churches  that  have  held  his 
memory  in  honour  ever  since,  have  steadfastly  maintained  that  he  did  not 
hold  the  tenets  condemned  by  the  Council  of  Ephesus.  The  churches 
now  called  Nestorian  confessedly  do  not  hold  them.  Therefore,  there  is 
strong  reason  to  doubt,  whether,  in  the  question  of  doctrine,  he  or  they 

VOL.  I. — 4& 


386  NESTORIANS  AND  MONOPHYSITES,       [PART  I. 

I.  Nestorius,    patriarch  of    Constantinople,    in   declaiming 
against  the  old  and  pious  terna  QeoTUc^  or  Deipara,  (ascribed  to 
the  blessed  Virgin  as  the  mother  of  Him  who  was  both  God 
and  man,)  dogmatized  contrary  to  the  simplicity  of  the  Chris- 
tian doctrine,  affirming  in  effect,  that  the  Word  of  God  and  the 
man  Jesus  were  two  different  persons,  united  only  by  a  sort  of 
moral  union,  the  former  inhabiting  the  latter  as  a  temple.    From 
this   doctrine  it  followed,   contrary  to  the  Christian  faith,  that 
the  Word  of  God  was  not  made  flesh,  nor  born  into  this  world, 
nor  did  he  suffer  for  us,   nor  redeem  us  with  his   blood  ;  that 
Christ  was  not  God,  but  only  the  temple  of  God  ;  that  the  Vir- 
gin was  only  mother  of  a  man,  and  not  of  him  who  was  both 
man  and  God.     It  is  needless  to  go  into  a  detail  of  the  Nesto- 
rian  errors,  or  to  point  out  their  inconsistency  with  Scripture. 
Their  consequences  were  so  dreadful  that  the  holy  oecumenical 
synod  of   Ephesus,  in   431,  most  justly  styled   their   author 
another  Judas,  and  pronounced  anathema  against  all  who  should 
divide  the  person  of  Jesus  Christ,     The  decree  of  this  synod 
on  the  incarnation,   was    soon  accepted  and  approved  by  the 
church  in  all  parts  of  the  world  ;  for  though  John,  patriarch  of 
Antioch,  and  the  Oriental  bishops,  for  a  short  time  disputed  the 
lawfulness  of   the   proceedings   at  Ephesus,    they  afterwards 


have  been  condemned  by  the   church  universal.     The   investigations  of 
modern  historians  are  decidedly  favourable  to  their  plea. 

3.  If,  as  is  probable,  Nestorius  was  condemned  on  unfair  statements  of 
his  doctrine,  and  partial  selection  of  proofs  from  his  writings,  the  decision 
of  the  personal  question  must  be  held  to  have  been  unjust,  and  as  such, 
"  invalid  and  unratified  in  heaven."  (Supra.  Part.  I.  ch.  iv.  sect.  2.  p.  66.) 
i  4,  The  preponderance  of  evidence  ever  yet  discoverable,  in  favour  of 
Nestorius,  shows  that  the  churches  of  the  East  had  probable  reasons  for 
refusing  to  acquiesce  in  the  decision  of  the  personal  question  by  the  Coun- 
cil of  Ephesus,  even  had  they  admitted  its  (Ecumenicity.  The  facts  of 
Nestorius'  case  were  only  the  motivum  arresti  of  that  council.  It  may 
have  erred  concerning  the  sense  he  put  on  the  terms  hu<n?  and  <!-ovct.<futt, 
&c.  while  its  statement  of  that  which  was  de  fide^  the  true,  doctrine  of  the 
church  concerning  the  natures  and  person  of  Christ,  being  not  disputed^ 
even  by  the  dissentient  churches,  was  sanctioned  by  universal  consent.] 


CHAP.  XIV.]  NESTORIANISM  CONDEMNED.  387 

united  themselves  to  St.  Cyril  of  Alexandria  and  the  rest  of 
the  church,  in  pronouncing  anathema  against  Nestorianism.*^ 
The  partizans  of  the  condemned  doctrine  only  found  support  in 
Persia,  w^here  they  disseminated  their  errors  and  obtained  a 
permanent  settlement.'^  The  chief  founders  of  the  sect  there 
were  Ibas,  Barsumas,  Manes,  and  others  who  had  been  expell- 
ed from  the  school  of  Edessa  in  consequence  of  their  doctrine. 
The  Nestorians  have  always  continued  in  those  parts  ;  they 
disclaim  the  name  of  Nestorians,  and  pretend  that  their  doc- 
trine and  churches  are  derived  from  the  apostles.*^  They  how- 
ever reckon  Nestorius,  Diodorus,  and  Theodore  of  Tarsus,  who 
taught  the  Nestorian  tenets,  among  the  saints  ;  and  while  they 
pretend  that  there  is  no  real  difference  between  their  doctrine 
and  that  of  the  church, *^  they  anathematize  the  oecumenical  sy- 
nods of  Ephesus  and  Chalcedon,  because  they  denied  that 
Christ  was  two  different  persons. s'  * 

Since  therefore  the  Nestorian  doctrine  was  condemned  by 
the  whole  church  throughout  the  world  ;  since  those  who 
maintained  it  were  ejected  from  the  Christian  society  and 
always  accounted  heretics  ;  since  the  Nestorians  have  never 
yet  been  restored  to  the  communion  of  the  catholic  church, 
never  forsaken  their  errors,  never  acknowledged  the  errors  of 
their  founders  ;  and  since  they  anathematize  the  whole  church 
in  anathematizing  the  synods  of  Ephesus  and  Chalcedon,  it 
seems  to  me  that  we  cannot  reckon  them  as  any  part  of  the 

c  [The  discussion  of  the  facts  of  the  case  of  the  Nestorians  is  out  of 
the  question,  in  notes  to  a  work  like  this.  The  writer  can  only  protest 
against  the  very  partial  statements  in  the  text,  and  refer  the  reader  who 
may  desire  to  be  fully  convinced  of  their  unfairness,  to  the  diligent  and 
accurate  researches  of  "  the  German  Tillemont,"  (as  Mr.  Bowling  has 
called  him,)  C.  W.  F.  Walch,  in  his  History  of  Heresies,  Vol.  V.  p.  289— 
936.  So  much  as  may  serve  to  bear  out  the  argument  in  the  foregoing 
note,  may  be  found  even  in  the  condensed  narrative  of  Gieseler,  Text-book 
of  Ecc.  Hist.  (Cunningham's  trans.)  Vol.  I.  §  86.  pp.  228— 237.J 

"^  Assemani  Biblioth.  Orientalis,  torn,  iv.  p.  69.        "  Ibid.  76. 
f  Ibid.  220.  g  Ibid.  230. 


888  NESTORIANS  AND  MONOPHYSITES.        [PART  I, 

church  of  Christ,  even  though  some  of  them  may  be  desirous 
of  representing  their  doctrine  as  orthodox  and  consonant  to 
that  of  the  church.^ 

2.  The  doctrine  attributed  to  Eutyches,  of  the  conversion  of 
the  human  nature  into  the  divine,  or  the  mixture  of  the  two 
natures  together  in  Christ,  so  as  to  form  but  one  nature  after 
the  incarnation,  was  rejected  by  Dioscorus,  and  the  other  lead- 
ers of  the  Monophysite  faction,  who  opposed  themselves  to  the 
decree  of  the  holy  oecumenical  synod  of  Chalcedon,  (451,) 
which  was  received  and  approved  by  the  church  in  all  parts  of 
the  world.  They  and  their  descendants,  entitled  Monophysites 
or  Jacobites,  acknowledged  only  one  nature  in  Christ,  com- 
pounded of  the  divinity  and  humanity,  yet  without  conversion, 
confusion,  or  mixture.'  This  doctrine,  like  the  Nestorian, 
shook  the  main  pillars  of  the  Christian's  hope ;  for  in  attribu- 
ting to  our  blessed  Saviour  a  sort  of  third  nature,  compounded 


i  [Since  there  is  reason  for  doubt  whether  the  "!doctrine"  condemned 
by  the  Council  of  Ephesus,  and  in  consequence  "  by  the  whole  church 
throughout  the  world  "  was  held  by  Nestorius ;  and  since  it  is  certain  that 
it  is  not  now  held  by  the  churches  known  as  Nestorian  ;  since  those  who 
have  refused  to  recognize  the  decision  of  the  Council  of  Ephesus  in  the 
personal  question,  have  not  been  without  probable  grounds  for  such  refusal, 
and  therefore  are  not  to  be  regarded  as  in  a  state  of  exclusion  from  the 
church,  nor  as  heretics  ;  since  restoration  to  church  communion  is  not  to  be 
required  where  the  excommunication  is  uncertain,  or  at  least  of  doubtful 
validity  ;  since  the  churches  called  Nestorian  have  constantly  denied  that 
they  held  the  error  they  have  been  called  on  to  forsake  ;  since  the  actual 
errors  of  their  founders  appear  to  have  been  errors  of  judgment  on  matters 
of  opinion,  and  not  of  the  faith ;  since  they  anathematize  the  synods  of 
Ephesus  and  Chalcedon,  not  as  exponents  of  the  faith,  but  as  judges  charged 
with  illegality  and  injustice  ;  since  they  are  of  apostolic  origin  and  have 
maintained,  for  the  most  part,  the  primitive  discipline  ;  and  since  they  pro- 
fess their  faith  in  the  catholic  creeds,  conformably  with  that  of  the  cathoUc 
church  ;  they  are  not  lightly  to  be  rejected  from  the  number  of  the  churches 
of  Christ,  but  rather  to  be  regarded  as  brethren,  long  alienated  not  without 
some  fault  on  both  sides-l 

'  See  Assemani's  Dissertatio  de  Monophysitis,  in  the  second  volume  of 
his  Biliotheca  Orientalis,  soct.  V. 


CHAP.  XIV.]  ORIGIN    OF  THE    MONOPHYSITES.  389 

of  the  human  and  divine,  it  threatened  to  render  his  suffering 
for  us  imperfect  and  incapable  of  obtaining  salvation  for  men  ; 
for  unless  Christ  had  been  very  and  perfect  man  to  suffer,  and 
very  God  to  confer  an  infinite  value  on  those  sufferings,  his 
death  would  have  been  inadequate  to  the  accomplishment  of  so 
great  a  work. 

Dioscorus,  patriarch  of  Alexandria,  who  was  deposed  by  the 
oecumenical   synod  of  Chalcedon  for  his  outrageous  proceed- 
ings against  the  opponents  of  the  Eutychian  heresy,  and  who 
refused  to  believe  the  orthodox  doctrine  defined  by  the  synod  and 
approved  by  the  whole  Christian  world,  was  legitimately  suc- 
ceeded by  Proterius  in  the  see  of  Alexandria  ;  but  the  Mono- 
physite,  Timothy  ^Elurus,   intruded  into  that  see,   having  ob- 
tained ordination  from  two  deposed  Egyptian  Bishops  of  the 
same  party  ;    and  his   adherents  murdered  Proterius.     In  the 
same  manner  Theodosius,  a  monk  of  Palestine,  usurped  the  ■ 
see  of  Juvenal,  patriarch  of  Jerusalem,  while  the  latter  was  ab- 
sent at   Constantinople,    and   ordained  Monophysite  bishops 
throughout  Palestine,    in  opposition  to  the   catholic  bishops. 
Some  time  after,  another  Monophysite,  Peter  Fullo,  came  to 
Antioch  under  the  protection  of  Zeno  the  governor,  and  excited 
a  schism  against  the  patriarch  Martyrius,  on  whose  retirement 
he  seized  the  bishopric,  but  was  soon  compelled  to  fly  by  the 
orders  of  the  emperor.     Such  was  the  origin  of  the  Monophy- 
sites,   who  attempted  then,  and  afterwards  by  the  aid  of  the 
civil  power,  to  usurp  the  various  sees  of  the  church ;  and  who 
established  a  rival  communion,  anathematizing  the  Council  of 
Chalcedon"  approved  by  the  whole  Christian  world,  reckoning 
its  adherents  among   the  heretics,  and  including  among  the 
saints  Dioscorus,  Barsumus,  Timothy,  Severus,  Jacobus,  Theo- 
dosius, and  others  who  were  notoriously  opposed  to  the  catho- 
lic doctrine,  and  guilty  of  offences  against  the  law  of  unity. 
Hence,  although  some  of  the  Monophysites  in  latter  times  have 


^  Ibid.  s.  iv. 


390  NESTORTANS    AND    MONOPHYSITES,  [PART  I. 

expressed  tehmselves  in  terms  that  seem  to  render  the  differ- 
ence in  doctrine  but  inconsiderable,'  there  seems  to  be  no  rea- 
son to  suppose  that  they  form  a  portion  of  the  cathohc  church, 
having  been  originally  excluded  from  that  church  as  well  by  its 
decree  as  by  their  own  separation  from  us  :  nor  have  they  ever 
ceased  to  treat  the  doctrine  of  the  church  as  heretical,  styling 
us  Chalcedonians,"'  and  reckoning  us  among  the  heretics  to 
this  day."^ 

It  seems  therefore  that  the  Nestorians  and  Monophysites,  or 
Jacobites,  are  no  part  of  the  church  of  Christ,  for,  as  I  have 
elsewhere  observed,"  the  assumption  that  they  hold  what  are 
called  fundamental  doctrines,  and  are  therefore  free  from  here- 
sy, is  founded  on  an  uncertain  and  arbitrary  distinction.     We 

1  Assemani  Bibl.  Orient,  t.  ii.  p.  277.  97. 

m  See  Buchanan's  Christian  Researches,  p.  123,  where  the  Creed  of 
the  Syrian  Christians  of  St.  Thomas  in  India,  is  stated  to  include  a  con- 
demnation of  the  errors  of  "  Arius,  Sabellius,  Macedonius,  Manes,  Marci- 
anuSj  Julianus,  Nestorius,  and  the  Chalcedoniansy 

°  [The  case  of  the  Monophysites  is  much  less  clear  than  that  of  the 
Nestorians.  Still  there  are  reasons  for  hesitating  to  regard  them  as  con- 
demned heretics.  The  lamentable  commotions  which  attended  the  process 
of  their  severance  from  the  communion  of  the  other  Eastern  churches, 
render  it  extremely  difficult,  not  to  say  impossible,  to  decide  how  far  jus- 
tice and  the  established  laws  of  church  discipline  were  observed  in  the 
various  condemnations  of  the  Monophysite  churches,  and  how  far  their  at- 
titude of  opposition  to  the  rest  of  the  Christian  body  may  be  resolved  into 
the  maintenance  of  a  consistent  and  not  groundless  plea  against  oppression. 
Their  present  state  of  dispersion  and  great  ignorance  make  it  hard  to 
speak  with  assurance  of  their  doctrine,  and  its  pretensions  to  substantial 
catholicity. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  doctrines  of  Eutyches  and  Dioscorus,  and 
those  who  obstinately  hold  them,  are  under  the  ban  of  the  church ;  but  in 
our  uncertainty  whether  the  Monophysite  churches  do  hold,  or  have  ever 
held  those  doctrines,  and  whether  their  state  of  external  separation  may 
not  be  accounted  for  on  other  grounds,  it  is  surely  the  part  of  charity  to 
"  believe  all  things,"  and  "  hope  all  things,"  rather  than  pronounce  their 
condemnation.] 

o  Chapter  V.     Appendix  on  Fundamentals. 


CHAP.  XIV.]  ORIGIN  OF  THE  MONOPHYSITES.  391 

need  not  however  pronounce  them  heretics  in  such  a  sense  as 
imports  a  grievous  sin  on  their  parts,  and  the  loss  of  salvation  : 
"Them  that  are  vi^ithoul,  Godjudgeth;"  but  we  cannot 
consider  them  as  the  people  of  God,  invested  with  those  privi- 
leges which  revelation  gives  to  God's  children,  to  those  who 
are  within  his  kingdom. p 


P  [The  writer,  at  least,  would  prefer  to  say  with  Field, — "  These,  holding 
the  rule  of  faith,  and  believing  all  those  things  that  are  on  the  peril  of  eter- 
nal damnation  to  be  particularly  and  expressly  known  and  believed,  and 
their  separation  not  growing  (for  ought  we  know)  out  of  Pharisaical  and 
damnable  pride — but  out  of  error,  not  directly  contrary  to  the  rule  of  faith, 
or  some  other  human  infirmity  or  defect ;  and  it  no  way  appearing  that  their 
obstinacy  is  such,  that  though  they  knew  they  did  amiss,  they  would  still 
continue  so  to  do ;  we  account  them  in  the  number  of  the  churches  of 
God,  and  doubt  not  but  that  innumerable,  living  and  dying  in  them,  not- 
withstanding their  sundry  defects,  imperfections,  and  wants,  are,  and  have 
been  saved."     Of  the  Church,  Book  ITI.  chap.  v.  p.  71.  ed.  1606.1 


I 


A  TREATISE  ON  THE  CHURCH  OF  CHRIST. 


PART  II. 


ON   THE    BRITISH   REFORMATION 


Vol.  I.—50 


A  TREATISE 


ON 


THE  CHURCH   OF   CHRIST, 


PART  II.— CHAPTER  I. 


ON  THE  CHARACTERS  OF  THE  TEMPORAL  PROMOTERS  OF  THE 

REFORMATION. 

It  is  my  design  in  this  Part  to  examine  the  reformation  of 
the  church  in  Great  Britain  and  Ireland,  to  trace  its  conformity 
with  the  faith  and  disciphne  of  the  cathohc  church,  and  to  reply 
to  the  various  imputations  of  heresy,  schism,  variation,  and  in- 
consistency, advanced  by  Bossuet  in  his  "  Variations,"  and  by 
other  opponents  of  the  church  of  England. 

The  real  facts  of  the  reformation  in  England  have  been  so 
misrepresented  from  ignorance  or  design,  that  there  is  no  part 
of  our  controversies  which  merits  from  members  of  the  catholic 
churches  of  these  nations  a  more  attentive  study.  It  is  perpetu- 
ally and  confidently  asserted  by  our  opponents,  that  the  various 
corrections  in  ecclesiastical  matters,  made  in  the  reigns  of 
Henry  VIII.,  Edward  VI.,  and  Elizabeth,  were  effected,  and 
can  only  be  defended  on  principles  subversive  of  ecclesiastical 
authority  and  unity  ;  therefore,  that  we  cannot  maintain  the  au- 
thority of  the  church  of  England  as  a  part  of  the  church  of 
Christ,  and  the  necessity  of  adhering  to  her  communion,  with- 
out at  the  same  moment  condemning  the  reformation  (or  foun- 
dation as  they  call  it)  of  the  church  of  England'  The  use  made 
of  this  principle  by  the  Romanist  is,  to  argue  that  a  church 


«  « 


396  THE    BRITISH    REFORMATION.  [PART  II, 

which  by  her  fundamenfal  principle  is  deprived  of  all  spiritual 
authority,  and  which  merely  relics  on  the  civil  power  for  pro- 
tection against  anarchy,  cannot  be  a  true  church  of  Christ.  On 
the  other  side,  the  dissenter  justifies  his  separation  and  resist- 
ance to  ecclesiastical  authority,  by  ascribing  similar  conduct  to 
the  church  from  which  he  separates  ;  and  the  latitudinarian 
or  the  heretic  refuses  to  admit  the  authority  and  judgment  of 
the  universal  church,  when  adduced  by  us  against  him,  because 
he  alleges  that  the  Reformation  itself  was  based  in  their  rejec- 
tion. We  need  not  wonder  then  that  a  view  of  the  Reformation 
so  useful  to  all  the  enemies  of  the  church  of  England,  is  assidu- 
ously and  confidently  maintained  by  them. 

If  indeed,  as  is  alleged,  the  church  of  England  was  founded 
at  the  Reformation  by  separation  from  the  catholic  church,  if 
its  faith  was  then  invented  or  changed  by  Henry  VIII. ,  or  by 
any  other  sovereign  on  any  motives  whatever,  good  or  evil ;  if 
the  Reformation  was  the  introduction  of  a  new  Gospel,  the 
revelation  of  a  doctrine  hitherto  unknown  to  the  catholic  church, 
or  condemned  by  it ;  and  if  the  church  of  England  was  respon- 
sible for  all  the  views,  motives,  acts,  of  Henry,  Edward,  Eliza- 
beth, and  their  courtiers  ;  in  this  case  we  need  not  pretend  to 
form  any  part  of  the  church  :  our  adversaries  might  triumph. 
But  we  altogether  deny  these  positions.  The  church  of  Eng- 
land was  not  founded  at  the  reformation,  nor  separated  from 
the  catholic  church,  nor  was  its  faith  changed  by  Henry  VIIL, 
&c. ;  nor  was  the  doctrine  of  the  Reformation  a  new  and  un- . 
known  gospel ;  nor  is  it  possible,  on  any  principle  of  reason  or 
justice,  to  identify  the  church  of  England  with  all  the  sins, 
errors,  and  vices  of  those  temporal  rulers  who  supported  its  re- 
formation. This  then,  in  general,  is  what  I  proceed  to  show, 
considering  successively  the  character  and  conduct  of  secular 
rulers  as  affecting  the  Reformation  of  the  church  of  England  ; 
the  abolition  of  the  papal  jurisdiction  and  the  schism  ;  the  royal 
supremacy  and  proceedings  during  the  reigns  of  Henry  VIIL, 
Edward  VI.,  Mary,  and  Elizabeth  ;  the  principles  of  the  Re- 
formation in  England  ;  the  variations  of  the  church  in  religion  ; 


CHAP.  I.]       EVIL  PRINCES  MADE  INSTRUMENTS  OF  GOOD.  397 

the  character  of  archbishop  Cranmer  ;  and  the  reformations  and 
schisms  in  Ireland  and  Scotland. 

I  shall  first  consider  the  character  of  the  temporal  rulers  as 
affecting  the  reformation  of  the  church  of  England.  That  men 
of  unsanctified  characters  have  frequently  been  made  instru- 
mental in  performing  works  beneficial  to  the  church,  must 
be  admitted  by  Romanists  themselves.  The  character  of 
Constantino  the  Great  was  stained  by  serious  offences,  yet  he 
established  Christianity  in  the  Roman  empire.  Clovis,  the  first 
Christian  king  of  the  Franks  ;  Phocas,  who  conferred  on  the 
Roman  patriarch  the  title  of  oecumenical  bishop  ;  the  empress 
Irene,  who  established  the  worship  of  images  ;  many  of  the 
Roman  pontiffs  themselves  ;  and  even  some  of  those  who  were 
most  zealous  to  extend  their  jurisdiction,  were  all  guilty  of 
great  and  terrible  crimes.  The  emperor  Napoleon  restored 
Christianity  in  France,  yet  it  will  not  be  pretended  that  his 
character  was  one  of  much  sanctity. 

There  is  no  impossibility  that  God  should  cause  evil  men  to 
benefit  the  church,  for  in  the  occasional  employment  of  such 
instruments,  he  only  glorifies  his  ovi^n  supreme  power  and  wis- 
dom, which  can  induce  good  from  the  very  evils  he  permits  ; 
and  it  may  be  designed  to  lead  his  people  rather  to  contemplate 
the  truth  itself,  than  the  personal  characters  of  its  promoters, 
which  if  it  were  regarded  as  the  invariable  test  of  truth,  would 
even  open  the  way  for  heresy,  because  it  has  been  remarked 
that  the  founders  of  heresies  are  usually  men  of  great  external 
sanctity.  Bossuet  himself  admits  that  God  has  made  use  of 
very  evil  princes  to  accomplish  great  works. "^  The  evil  char- 
acter then  of  Henry  VII 1.,  of  Somerset,  or  of  any  other  tem- 
poral or  spiritual  promoters  of  reformation  in  the  church,  affords 
(even  if  it  were  not  exaggerated)  no  proof  that  the  Reforma- 
tion was  in  itself  wrong.  The  objection  only  applies  in  a  case 
supposed  by  Bossuet :    when  "  God  desires  to  reveal  to  men 


a  Bossuet,  Variations  des  Eglises  Protestantes,  liv.  vii.  49. 


398  THE    BRITISH    REFORMATION.  [PART  II. 

some  truth,  important,  and  unknown  for  many  ages,  or  entirely- 
unheard  of :'"'  in  such  a  case  he  deems  it  impossible  that  God 
should  have  employed  such  agents  as  Henry  VIII.  or  Cranmer. 
We  will  go  further  than  this.  If  such  a  truth  as  had  been  en- 
tirely unheard  of  before,  or  condemned  in  all  past  ages  by  the 
catholic  church,  had  then  been  propounded  by  "an  angel  from 
heaven,"  he  would  have  been  "  anathema.""^  But  we  deny  that 
any  new  important  truth  unknown  for  ages  to  the  catholic 
church,  or  never  heard  of  before,  was  promulgated  at  this  time 
in  the  church  of  England.  We  by  no  means  admit  that  the 
royal  supremacy  then  acknowledged  by  the  church  of  England 
was  novel.  We  suppose  that  some  superstitious  opinions, 
commonly  received  by  abuse  in  some  churches,  e.  g.  the  papal 
infallibility  and  universal  jurisdiction,  purgatory,  transubstantia- 
tion,  were  suppressed  ;  some  doctrines  were  defined  more  accu- 
rately, which  had  been  vaguely  and  imperfectly  held ;  the  Scrip- 
tures were  more  freely  circulated,  several  superfluous  and  abus- 
ed rites  were  removed,  and  others  were  corrected.  There  was 
nothing  in  all  this  which  required  any  extraordinary  mission, 
or  superlative  sanctity. 

It  may  be  objected  that  this  affords  an  inadequate  view  of 
the  important  changes  made  by  the  Reformation,  and  that  if  the 
difference  between  the  faith  of  the  church  of  England  before 
and  after  it,  was  not  profound  and  total,  it  could  never  have, 
been  worth  while  to  suffer  martyrdom  for  the  truths  of  the  Re-» 
formation,  or  to  separate  from  the  existing  church.     But  I  re- 
ply  tliat  this  proceeds  on  a  totally  erroneous  view  of  facts. 
Those  who  suffered  under  Queen  Mary,  suffered  because  they 
would  not  profess  their    belief  in  certain  mistaken  opinions 
which  their  opponents   erroneously  asserted  to  be  matters  of 
faith  ;  and  therefore  the  fact  of  their  suffering,  does  not  prove 
that  there  was  in  reality  a  total  contradiction  in  matters  of  faith 
between  them  and  their  persecutors.     The  Lutherans  always, 


b  Ibid.  '  Galat.  i.  S,  9. 


CHAP.  I.]   EXTENT  OF  REFORMATION  EXAGGERATED.       399 

as  we  know,  asserted  that  they  did  not  differ  in  any  article  of 
faith  from  the  cathohc,  or  even  the  Roman  church,  but  only  as 
to  certain  abuses  and  erroneous  opinions.*^  I  also  contend  that 
the  friends  of  the  reformation  in  England  did  not  separate  from 
the  church  in  point  of  fact.  These  are  truths  which  I  shall 
prove  hereafter. 

Admitting  then  that  Henry,  Somerset,  &c.,  were  justly  ac- 
cused of  crimes,  the  reformation  which  they  promoted  may, 
in  itself,  have  been  a  just  and  necessary  work  ;  and  it  would 
have  been  irrational  and  wrong  in  the  church  of  England  to 
have  refused  all  consideration  of  subjects  proposed  to  her  exami- 
nation or  approbation  by  the  royal  authority,  and  to  refuse  her 
sanction  to  reforms  in  themselves  laudable,  merely  because  the 
character  of  the  king  or  his  ministers  was  unsaintly,  and  his  or 
their  private  motives  suspected  to  be  wrong.  Such  conduct  on 
the  part  of  the  church  would  have  been  needlessly  offensive  to 
temporal  rulers,  while  it  would  (in  the  supposed  case)  have 
been  actually  injurious  to  the  cause  of  religion,  and  an  unchari- 
table judgment  of  private  motives.  It  must  be  remembered, 
that  although  Henry  and  the  protector  Somerset  may  have  been 
secretly  influenced  by  avarice,  revenge,  or  other  evil  passions, 
they  never  made  them  public.  They  avowed  as  their  reasons 
for  supporting  reformation,  the  desire  of  removing  usurpations, 
establishing  the  ancient  rights  of  the  church  and  the  crown, 
correcting  various  abuses  prejudicial  to  true  religion ;  and  there- 
fore the  church  could  not  refuse  to  take  into  consideration  the 
specific  objects  of  Reformation  proposed  by  them  to  her  exami- 
nation or  sanction. 

Nor  does  the  justification  of  the  church  of  England  in  any 
degree  depend  on  the  question  of  the  lawfulness  of  Henry's 
marriage  with  Catharine  of  Arragon,  or  with  Anna  Boleyn ; 
such  matters,  as  Bossuet  observes,  "  are  often  regulated  by 
mere  probabilities,"^  and  there  were  at  least  abundant  proba- 


"■  Confess.  August,  pars  i.  sect.  22  ;  pars  ii.  Prologus  ;  and  Epilogus. 
*  Variations,  liv.  vii.  50. 


*^ 


^..  ^, 


» 


400  THE    BRITISH    REFORMATION.  [PART  II. 

bilities  that  the  marriage  with  Catharine  was  null  ab  initio  / 
but  this  whole  question  only  affects  the  character  of  Henry 
VIII.  and  of  those  immediately  engaged  in  it ;  it  does  not  affect 
the  Reformation  of  the  church  of  England. 

We  have  an  equal  right  to  set  aside  the  question  of  the  sup- 
pression of  monasteries.  That  suppression  may  perhaps  show 
that  the  temporal  promoters  of  the  Reformation  had  temporal 
motives.  We  do  not  deny  it,  all  we  insist  upon  is,  that  the 
church  of  England  is  not  to  be  made  responsible  for  those  mo- 
tives. She  never  was  invited  to  approve  their  avarice  or  other 
evil  passions.  She  herself  suffered  from  that  avarice,  just  as 
the  French,  the  Italian,  Spanish,  Portuguese  churches  have 
suffered  under  the  extortions  or  confiscations  of  their  temporal 
rulers.  It  must  be  confessed,  however,  that  in  England,  as 
well  as  in  other  countries,  the  clergy  viewed  without  any  ex- 
treme regret  the  extinction  of  the  various  orders  of  monks  and 
friars,  who  (though  in  some  things  commendable)  had  degene- 
rated from  the  purity  of  the  ancient  rule,  interfered  with  the 
unity  and  discipline  of  the  church,  and  sustained  the  most  ex- 
travagant pretensions  of  the  Roman  pontiffs,  subversive  of  the 
liberties  of  churches.  *- 


f  It  is  not  denied  by  any  one,  that  the  marriage  with  Catharine  was  with- 
in the  limits  prohibited  by  the  book  of  Leviticus  ;  and  though  God  himself 
enjoined  such  a  marriage  in  case  of  a  brother's  death  without  issue,  we  must 
remember  that  his  express  command  is  sufficient  to  authorize  proceedings 
which  would  be  otherwise  contrary  to  his  law  ;  e.  g.  the  destruction  of  the 
Canaanites.  The  bishops  and  convocations  of  England,  the  universities  of 
Oxford,  Cambridge,  Paris,  Orleans,  Anglers.  Bourges,  Tholouse,  Bologna, 
Padua,  &c.,  and  a  multitude  of  theologians,  judged  that  any  human  dispen- 
sation in  this  case  was  null. 


CHAPTER  II. 

ON  THE  ABOLITION  OF  THE  PAPAL  JURISDICTION,  AND 

THE  SCHISM. 

The  objections  advanced  against  the  abolition  of  the  papal 
jurisdiction  in  England  are,  that  it  was  effected  by  Henry  VIII. 
in  revenge  for  the  refusal  of  the  Roman  pontiff  to  sanction  his 
marriage  with  Anna  Boleyn  ;  that  it  was  carried  by  false  argu- 
ments ;  that  the  papal  jurisdiction  having  existed  since  the  foun- 
dation of  Christianity  in  England,  it  was  schismatical  to  remove 
it;  and  that  the  church  of  England  then  separated  herself 
from  the  catholic  church,  and  from  Christian  unity. 

I.  Now,  as  I  have  already  observed,  the  private  motives  of 
King  Henry  were  not  matters  on  which  the  church  of  England 
could  judge.  His  pubhc  professions  were  unexceptionable. 
According  to  them  he  was  influenced  by  a  desire  of  reforming 
abuses,  reviving  usurped  rights,  and  relieving  the  church  and 
state  from  foreign  oppressions  and  exactions.  The  church  of 
England  was  then  bound  to  examine  the  question  of  the  aboli- 
tion of  the  papal  jurisdiction  on  its  own  merits  ;  and  if  she  was 
convinced  that  abolition  was  right  and  advisable,  she  was  justi- 
fied in  acquiescing  in  the  various  laws  of  the  civil  powers,  made 
for  that  purpose.     Let  us  examine  those  laws. 

The  various  acts  of  parliament  made  in  England,  against  cer- 
tain parts  of  the  papal  power,  all  relate  to  those  peculiar 
branches  of  ordinary  jurisdiction,  which  had  been  acquired  in 
process  of  time  over  the  church  of  England,  and  which  in  no 
degree  concerned  the  precedence  of  the  Roman  see  in  the 
catholic  church.  The  learned  primate  Bramhall  has  observed, 
that  these  acts  were  not  intended  to  deprive  the  Roman  pon- 
tiff of  any  really  spiritual  power  ;'^    they  only  cast  out  some 

»  Bramhall,  Works,  p.  340, 
VOL.  I. — 51 


402  THE    BRITISH    REFORMATION.  [PART  II. 

branches  of  his  exterior  jurisdiction  which  were  not  instituted 
by  Christ,  nor  by  the  cathohc  church."^  They  did  not  deny 
the  precedency  of  the  bishop  of  Rome  in  the  universal  church, 
nor  his  right  (in  conjunction  with  Christian  princes)  of  sum- 
hioning  and  presiding  in  general  councils,  nor  his  power  of  de- 
fining questions  of  faith  in  conjunction  with  the  cathohc  church, 
nor  his  right  to  exhort  all  bishops  to  observe  the  canons,  nor 
his  being  the  centre  of  catholic  unity  when  he  is  in  communion 
with  all  the  catholic  church.  None  of  these  things  (the  chief 
privileges  of  the  Roman  primacy  according  to  Romanists)  were 
affected  by  the  acts  of  parliament  for  abolishing  the  usurped 
jurisdiction  of  the  Roman  bishop  in  England  ;  and  therefore  it 
is  vain  to  impute  schism  or  heresy  to  the  church  of  England 
on  this  account,  even  on  the  supposition  that  the  primacy  of  the 
Roman  see  is  of  divine  institution. 

The  several  acts  of  parliament  alluded  to,  are  concerning 
Annates,  Bulls,  Appeals,  and  Dispensations. 

Annates. — In  1532  it  was  enacted,  that  annates,  or  first- 
fruits,  and  all  other  pecuniary  payments  for  bulls,  pensions, 
and  annuities,  to  the  Roman  see,  should  entirely  cease  ;^  and 
this  act  having  been  in  vain  suspended  from  execution,  in  order 
that  the  pope  might  redress  those  exactions,  it  was  confirmed 
by  another  act  in  1533,  which  ordered  that  no  person  from 
henceforward  should  pay  any  money  for  annates,  first-fruits, 
or  otherwise  for  any  bulls,  briefs  or  palls.  It  was  also  enacted, 
that  no  one  should  pay  any  pensions,  censes,  portions,  Peter's- 
pence,  or  other  impositions,  to  the  use  of  the  bishop  of  Rome.^ 

No  one  can  pretend  that  there  was  any  schism  or  heresy  in 
the  suppression  of  these  pecuniary  payments  or  taxes,  which 
being  of  an  entirely  temporal  nature,  could  never  have  been  law- 
fully levied  without  the  consent  of  the  civil  magistrate.  They 
were  generally,  too,  of  comparatively  recent  imposition.  Tho- 
massin,  presbyter  of  the  Oratory,  proves  that  annates  began  ta 


^  Bramhall,  Works,  p.  382. 

'  Act  23  Hen.  VIII.  for  the  repression  of  Annates,  &c. 

d  Act  25  Henry  VIII.  c.  20.  " 


CHAP,  II.J     SUPPRESSION  OF  THE  PAPAL  JURISDICTION.  403 

be  exacted  by  Boniface  IX.,  about  1392,''"  and  they  were  enforced 
by  a  refusal  of  the  bulls  of  nomination  to  benefices  or  sees.  They 
had  been  suppressed  by  the  edict  of  Charles  VI.,  king  of  France, 
in  140(5,  1417,  and  14 18-^  They  had  been  again  suppressed 
by  Louis  XL  in  1463  and  1464  ;^  and  what  is  more,  they  had 
been  already  prohibited  in  England,  by  act  of  parliament,  in 
the  reign  of  Henry  IV. ^  Even  now  in  Austria,  annates  are 
not  allowed  to  be  paid,  except  in  the  case  of  newly-created 
bishops.'  Pensions  began  to  be  fixed  on  benefices,  by  the  popes 
for  their  cardinals,  or  for  the  Roman  court,  about  the  same 
time  that  annates  arose  ;^  and  Peter's-pence  were  alms  which 
the  kings  of  England  had  very  long  been  accustomed  to  pay  to 
the  see  of  Rome,^  but  which  there  could  be  no  religious  obliga- 
tion on  them  to  continue.  Therefore  in  all  this  enactment  there 
was  nothing  to  which  the  church  of  England  could  rightly 
object. 

Bulls. — In  1532  it  was  enacted,  as  above,  that  no  one  should 
pay  any  money  for  bulls,  or  papal  letters  of  institution  to  bish- 
oprics ;  and  that  if  those  bulls  were  refused,  the  bishop  elect 
should  be  consecrated  in  England  without  them ;  and  the  law 
which  confirmed  this  in  1533,  enacted  that  no  one  in  future 
should  be  presented  to  the  pope  for  any  see,  nor  send  or  procure 
any  bulls,  briefs,  or  palls  there." 

The  necessity  of  papal  bulls,  even  for  archbishoprics,  was 
only  founded  on  the  laws  of  the  Roman  pontiffs,  collected  by 


e  Thomassinus,  Vetus  et  Npva  Ecclesiae  Disciplina,  t.  iii.  p.  447. 

f  Thomassin.  ibid.  p.  449,  e  Ibid.  453. 

h  Bramhall,  Works,  p.  336. 

'  Rechberger,  Encliiridon  Jiir.  Eccl.  Austriaci.  See  Report  of  Select 
Committee  on  Regulation  of  Roman  Catholics,  a.d.  1816. 

li  Thomassin.  iii.  p.  355,  3.56. 

'  Ibid.  p.  109.  In  the  time  of  Edward  III.  Peter's-pence  were  not 
allowed  to  be  collected  in  England. — Soames'  Hist.  Refor.  i.  p.  431. 

"  Act  23  Hen.  VIII.  for  repression  of  annates,  and  25  Hen.  VIII.  c.  20. 
for  the  non-payment  of  first-fruits  to  the  bishop  of  Rome. 


404  THE   BRITISH   REFORMATION.  [PART  II. 

Gregory  IX.  in  the  Decretals  ;'^  for  it  is  well  known,  that  for 
many  centuries  the  metropolitans  were  confirmed  and  ordained 
by  the  provincial  s3mods  of  bishops  ;"  but  these  laws  derived 
their  authority  in  England  entirely  from  the  consent  or  permis- 
sion  of  the  catholic  church  here.?     The  English  bishops,  as 
Thomassin  proves,  were,  so  late  as  1373,  confirmed  and  ordained 
by  their  metropolitans,    and  not  by  papal  bulls. i     The  custom 
of  obtaining  bulls  for  newly-elected  bishops,  arose  entirely  from 
the  papal  reservations  or  usurpations    of  the  patronage  of  all 
bishoprics,  during  the  great  Western  schism  ;''  and  they  were 
continued  afterwards  by  concordates  between  sovereigns  and  the 
Roman  see,  who  divided  the  spoils  of  the  church.     That  they 
may  be  dispensed  with  by  the  authority  of  particular  churches, 
we  may  conclude  from  the  synod  of  Ems  in  Germany,  a.d.  1785, 
which  declared,  that  if  the  pope  refused  to  confirm  the  bishops, 
they  would  find  resources  in  the  ancient  discipline.^     The  com- 
mission of  cardinals,  archbishops,  and  bishops,  instituted  by  the 
Emperor  Napoleon,  1811,  acknowledged  that  a  National  Coun- 
cil of  France  could  order  that  bishops  should  be   instituted  by 
the  metropolitan  or  senior  bishop  instead  of   the  pope,  in  case 
of  urgent  circumstances  ;'  and  when  the  Roman  bishop  had  for 
a  long  time  refused  to  institute  bishops  in  Portugal,  the  Portu- 


"  Thomassin.  torn.  iii.  p.  430. 

°  De  Marca,  De  Concord.  Sacerd.  et  Imperii,  lib.  iv.  c.  4.     Thomassin. 
torn.  ii.  p.  420,  &c. 

P  The  canon  law  was  only  partially  received  in  England. — Bramhall, 
Works,  p.  72,  328.  Even  the  laws  of  general  synods  in  matters  of  disci- 
pline, are  not  obligatory  in  particular  churches  until  they  are  received  there ; 
e.  g.  the  discipline  of  the  Council  of  Trent  has  never  been  universally  re- 
ceived. It  was  one  of  the  liberties  of  the  Galilean  church,  that  the  pontiff 
could  not  derogate  from  the  laws  or  customs  of  provinces,  or  the  lawful 
privileges  of  particular  churches. — Bailly,  Tract,  de  Eccl.  Christi.  torn.  ii. 
p.  209. 

q  Thomassin.  torn.  ii.  p.  430.  "■  Thomassin.  iii.  p.  393. 

«  Memoires  pour  servir  a  Thistoire  Eccl.  xviii.  siecle,  tom.  iii.  p.  60 — 65. 

J  Ibid.  523—530. 


CHAP.  II.]       SUPPRESSION  OF  THE  PAPAL  JURISDICTION.  405 

guese  applied  to  the  Gallican  church  to  intercede  with  the  pon- 
tiff on  their  behalf,  and  in  case  of  failure  to  consecrate  their 
bishops.  And  accordingly  the  Gallican  bishops  intimated  to 
the  Roman  bishop,  thai  in  case  of  his  continued  refusal,  they 
would  supply  his  defect,  and  consecrate  the  Portuguese  bish- 
ops.^ Therefore  it  is  plain  that  bulls  from  the  Roman  see  may 
be  dispensed  with  by  particular  churches,  when  there  is  a  suf- 
ficient reason,  e.  g.  the  desire  and  injunction  of  the  supreme 
temporal  power,  and  the  long  continuance  of  abuses  and  exac- 
tions connected  with  them. 

The  necessity  of  obtaining  a  pall  from  Rome  for  the  exer- 
cise of  metropolitan  jurisdiction,  was  founded  on  the  spurious 
decretals,  to  which  Gregory  VII.,  and  the  succeeding  bishops 
of  Rome  appealed,  in  justification  of  their  claims  on  this  point."^ 
Innocent  III.  interdicted  all  metropolitans  from  exercising  any 
functions  till  they  had  received  the  pall \^  but  this  regulation 
could  not  have  been  obligatory  on  the  church  of  England  at  any 
time,  except  by-  her  own  consent  and  permission,  and  therefore 
she  was  perfectly  at  liberty  to  withdraw  that  permission  whenever 
she  judged  it  expedient  so  to  do.  For  the  pall  itself  was  merely 
an  external  ensign  of  honour,  which  the  archbishop  of  Canter- 
bury had  originally  received  as  a  compliment  from  the  Roman 
see,  and  which  was  understood  to  give  those  who  possessed  it 
a  portion  of  the  authority  of  that  apostolical  see.''  But  it  was 
so  many  ages  before  the  use  of  the  pall  became  common  among 
metropolitans, y  that  it  is  plain  there  could  be  no  absolute  neces- 
sity for  obtaining  it. 

Appeals. — In  1532  it  was  enacted  that  all  causes  concerning 
wills,  matrimony,  and  divorce,  the  rights  of  tithes,   oblations, 


"  BramhalFs  Works,  p.  111.  "  Thomassinus,  torn.  i.  p.  379. 

w  Ibid.  "  Ibid.  p.  369. 

y  Palls  were  first  given  to  the  metropolitans  of  France  in  the  time  of  Bo- 
niface (the  eighth  century). — Thomassin.  torn.  i.  p.  370.  They  were  only 
gradually  given  to  other  metropolitans  afterwards,  and  the  popes  declared 
that  they  were  essential  to  the  exercise  of  the  metropolitan  jurisdiction. 


406  THE  BRITISH  REFORMATION.  [PART  II. 

and  obventions,  should  be  determined  within  the  realm  of  Eng- 
land by  the  proper  ecclesiastical  tribunals;^  and  in  1533 
it  was  enacted  that  no  manner  of  appeals  shall  be  made 
to  the  bishop  of  Rome,  but  that  all  causes  shall  be  ter- 
minated in  England.^  According  to  Fleury,  Du  Pin,  and  Van 
Espen,  the  custom  of  dii'ect  and  indiscriminate  appeals  to  Rome 
was  introduced  by  the  false  decretals.^  Various  Roman  theo- 
logians hold  that  all  appeals  to  Rome,  even  in  the  causes  of 
bishops,  are  of  human  institution.''  Du  Pin  shows  that  many 
churches  terminated  their  ecclesiastical  causes  themselves."^ 
The  African  church  prohibited  expressly  all  appeals  to  Rome,'' 
and  the  English  had  just  as  much  power.  Even  in  the  last 
century  (1788)  Leopold,  grand-duke  of  Tuscany,  abolished  all 
appeals  to  Rome,  and  determined  the  tribunals  in  which  all 
ecclesiastical  causes  should  be  decided,^  and  the  king  of  Naples 
also  prohibited  appeals.^  Even  in  Austria,  France,  Spain,  and 
other  countries,  no  appeal  is  allowed  to  the  Roman  pontiff,  ex- 
cept for  the  purpose  of  procuring  a  re-hearing  .oi  the  cause  in 
those  countries,^  which  is  very  different  from  sending  causes  to 
be  tried  before  Roman  tribunals.  The  Roman  bishop  was  given 
this  privilege  of  desiring  a  re-hearing  by  the  synod  of  Sardica, 
A.D.  341,  but  the  decree  of  this  synod  was  not  for  many  ages, 
and  never  generally  received  in  the  church,'  and  was  only  ob- 


«  Act  24  Hen.  VIII.  c.  12.  "Act  25  Hen.  VIII.  c.  19. 

*>  Fleury,  Discours  IV.  sur  I'hist.  Eccl.  et  Institution  au  Droit  Eccl.  torn, 
ii.  c.  23.  p.  206 ;  Du  Pin  de  Antiq.  Eccl.  Discipl.  p.  132,  &c. ;  Van  Espen, 
Jus  Ecclesiasticum  Universum,  pars  iii.  tit.  x.  c.  i. 

"=  De  la  Hogue,  Tractatus  de  Ecclesia,  p.  382 ;  Bouvier  de  Vera  Eccle- 
sia,  p.  823.  The  fabrication  of  false  decretals  to  sustain  this  pretension,  is 
developed  by  M.  de  Hontheim  in  his  Febronius,  chapter  iv.  sect.  viii. 

•*  Du  Pin  de  Antiq.  Eccl.  Disciplina,  p.  130,  131. 

«  Fleury,  Inst,  au  Droit  Eccl.  torn.  ii.  p.  206 ;  Van  Espen,  Tractatus 
Historico-canonicus  in  canones,  &c.  torn.  v.  oper.  62,  &c. ;  Thomassin.  Vet. 
et  Nov.  Eccl.  Discipl.  torn.  ii.  p.  47. 

f  Mem.  Eccl.  xviii.  siecle,  torn.  iii.  p.  107.  e  Ibid.  p.  120,  121, 

^  Fleury,  Discours  XII.  sur  les  Libertes  de  I'Eglise  Gall. 

'  Du  Pin  de  Antiqua  Ecclesiae  Disciplina,  p.  113.     The  Second  Disser- 


CHAP.  II.]        SUPPRESSION  OF  THE  PAPAL  JURISDICTION.  407 

ligatory  on  the  church  of  England  by  her  own  choice  and  con- 
sent, which  she  might  withdraw  at  any  time  on  a  sufficient  rea- 
son being  assigned. 

Dispensations. — It  was  enacted  in  1533  that  no  one  shall 
hereafter  sue  to  the  bishop  of  Rome  for  licenses,  dispensations, 
compositions  (for  annates),  faculties,  grants,  rescripts  (all  relat- 
ing to  the  institution  to  benefices),  delegacies  (in  ecclesiastical 
causes),  or  any  other  instruments  or  writings.^  I  have  already 
spoken  of  all  the  points  here  mentioned,  except  dispensations 
and  licenses.  According  to  Thomassin,  they  were  originally 
granted  by  all  bishops, ^  but  gradually  in  the  tenth  and  following 
centuries,  they  were  allowed  to  devolve  to,  or  were  usurped  by 
the  Roman  pontiffs.™  The  facility  with  which  they  were 
granted  for  money  excited  just  complaints,  and  enervated  the 
discipline  of  the  church.  The  evils  arising  from  this  afforded 
a  sufficient  reason  for  the  limitation  of  the  power  of  dispensa- 
tion in  future  to  English  prelates,''  who  would  naturally  feel 
more  deeply  interested  in  the  preservation  of  discipline  amongst 
us  than  the  Roman  court,  which  viewed  .this  power  chiefly  as  a 
means  of  supplying  its  pecuniary  necessities.  In  fact,  papal 
dispensations  have  been  abolished  in  several  other  countries. 
All  papal  dispensations  for  marriage  were  abolished  by  the 
emperor  Joseph  II.  in  his  dominions;"  the  synod  of  Ems,  in 
1785,  declared  that  all  bishops  should  dispense  even  in  casea 
reserved  to  the  pope;^  and  in  Austria  all  papal  absolutions  in 


tation  of  Du  Pin,  p.  93 — 116,  &c.  treats  of  the  whole  subject  of  appeals  to 
the  Roman  see  most  excellently  well. 
*k  Act  25  Hen.  VIII.  c.  21.  concerning  Peter-pence  and  dispensations. 

'  Vet.  et  Nov.  Eccl.  Discipl.  torn.  ii.  p.  606. 

•^  Ibid.  607—610. 

°  The  power  of  granting  dispensations  is  reserved  to  the  Primate  of 
England.  ,;  , 

o  Mem.  Eccl.  xviii.  siecle,  tom.  iii.  p.  20,  21. 

P  See  the  account  of  this  synod  in  Mem.  Eccl.  xviii.  siecle,  tom.  iii.  p. 


THE    BRITISH    REFORMATION.  [PART  11, 

reserved  cases  are  disallowed,  and  all  licenses  granted  by  the 
pope  to  bishops  are  held  null  by  the  Austrian  laws.^ 

In  the  suppression  of  these  various  branches  of  ordinary 
jurisdiction  there  was  nothing  which  the  church  of  England 
was  in  any  degree  bound  to  oppose  ;  her  own  rights  were  not 
infringed  by  these  acts  of  parliament,  they  were,  on  the  con- 
trary, rather  restored  and  confirmed ;  and  no  privilege  which 
belonged  to  the  Roman  see,  either  by  primitive  custom  or  by 
the  grant  of  oecumenical  synods,  was  interfered  with.     There- 
fore the  church  of  England  offered  no  opposition  to  these  legal 
enactments.     The   bishops  and    other  prelates    in  parliament 
acquiesced  in  them  ;  and  in  fine,  when  the  question  was  pro- 
posed to  the  bishops  and  clergy  of  England  in  the  provincial 
synods  of  Canterbury  and  York,  "  Whether  the  bishop  of  Rome 
has,  in  the  word  of  God,  any  greater  jurisdiction  in  the  realm 
of  England  than  any  other  foreign  bishop,"  they  determined  that 
he   had  not.""     The  universities  concurred  in  this  judgment.^ 
The  various  chapters,  and  the  convents  of  regulars,*mendicants, 
&c.  throughout  the  kingdom,  also  declared  their  assent,^  and 
only  one  bishop  (Fisher,  of  Rochester)  refused  to  unite  in  this 
general  decision  of  the  church  of  England.     Thus  the  ordinary 
jurisdiction  of  the  Roman  pontiffs,  which  had  been  either  con- 
ferred by  ourselves,  or  usurped  by  them,  was  regularly  and  a 
validly  suppressed.  ^^(B 

II.  Bossuet  attempts  to  prove  that  they  argued  on  false  prin- 
ciples in  suppressing  the  papal  jurisdiction  in  England.  It  was 
argued  from  Gregory  the  Great's  rejection  of  the  title  of  uni- 
versal bishop,  that  at  the  time  when  our  ancestors  received  the 

60 — 65 ;  and  all  its  acts  in  the  Report  of  Committee  on  Roman  catholics 
(1816),  p.  146,  &c. 

q  Rechberger,  Enchir.  Jur.  Eccl.  Austriaci,  1809. 

'  Burnet,  Hist.  Reform,  vol.  iii.p.  158, 159  (Oxford  ed.  1816).  Records, 
no.  26. 

B  Ibid.  p.  159,  Rec.  n.  27. 

«  See  Rymer,  Fcedera,  tom.  xiv.  p.  487 — 527,  where  the  documents  are 
preserved.     Burnet,  vol.  iii.  Rec.  n.  28. 


• 


CI 

m 


CHAP.  II.]        SUPPRESSION  OF  THE  PAPAL  JURISDICTION.  409 

V 

faith,  the  authority  of  the  Roman  see  was  in  a  laudable  modera- 
tion, which  Bossuet  endeavours  to  refute  by  adducing  passages 
from  Gi'egory's  writings,  claiming  an  extensive  jurisdiction.'^ 
Now,  without  discussing  the  argument  in  question,  we  may 
safely  allow  that  this  and  several  other  arguments  then  employed 
may  not  be  convincing,  because  they  are  only  a  few  out  of  a 
multitude  of  arguments  derived  from  Scripture,  the  doctrine 
and  practice  of  the  catholic  church  in  all  ages,  the  decrees  of 
general  councils,  and  the  history  of  particular  churches,^  which 
altogether  form  a  body  of  evidence  amply  sufficient  to  justify 
the  decision  of  the  church.  To  accuse  us  of  deciding  on  wrong 
principles,  because  some  one  or  two  unsound  arguments  may 
have  found  their  way  amidst  a  number  of  good  ones,  is  surely 
most  unreasonable  and  unjust. 

III.  It  is  further  argued,  that  the  papal  jurisdiction  had  existed 
in  England  ever  since  Christianity  had  been  introduced  by  its 
means,  and  that  it  was  an  act  of  ingratitude  for  this  benefit,  and 
even  of  a  schismatical  character,  to  disturb  so  ancient  a  privilege. 
But  as  it  has  been  already  observed,  the  various  branches  of 
jurisdiction  now  suppressed,  had  all  arisen  many  ages  after  the 
foundation  of  the  church  of  England,  by  the  permission  of  our 
churches,  and  of  our  Christian  kings,  or  by  mere  usurpation. 
"There  could  be  no  obligation  on  us  to  continue  these  privileges 
'o  the  Roman  see  any  longer  than  we  judged  it  expedient. 

esides  this,  whatever  acts  of  authority  had  been  performed  by 
Gregory  the  Great,  and  his  immediate  successors,  in  relation  to 
the  churches  founded  by  St.  Augustine,  were  to  be  considered 
as  extraordinary  acts,  justified  by  the  necessities  of  those 
churches,  and  by  the  power  inherent  in  every  catholic  bishop  in 
all  cases  of  absolute  necessity  ;  but  not  as  flowing  from  any 
ordinary  authority  or  jurisdiction  over  the  Christian  churches  of 
Britain.""     And  in  fine,  we  were  not  exclusively  or  originally 


a  Bossuet,  Variations,  liv.  vii.  s.  62. 
"  Burnet,  vol.  i.  p.  251—261. 

w  The  principle  of  the  canon  law  itself  was :  Quod  pro  necessitate  tem- 
VOL.  I. — 52 


m 


410  THE    BRITISH    REFORMATION.  [PART    II, 

indebted  to  Rome  for  our  Christianity,  the  church  having  existed 
here  several  centuries  before  the  arrival  of  St.  Augustine,  and 
the  Anglo-Saxons  even  having  been  converted  for  the  most  part 
by  holy  bishops  and  missionaries  from  Ireland. 

IV.  It  is  attempted  to  prove  the  church  of  England  schis- 
matical  by  alleging  that  the  abolition  of  the  Roman  jurisdiction 
in  England  was,  ipso  facto,  a  separation  from  the  centre  of 
catholic  unity  constituted  by  Jesus  Christ.  But  even  admitting 
(what  we  deny)  that  the  Roman  see  is  the  centre  of  unity  by 
Divine  appointment,  the  abolition  of  its  usurped  jurisdiction  in 
England  by  no  means  indicated  a  desire  on  our  part  to  separate 
from  its  communion.  Churches  may  surely  hold  fraternal  com- 
munion without  pretending  to  exercise  jurisdiction  over  each 
other.  The  church  of  England  most  certainly  did  not  design 
to  separate  from  the  communion  of  any  church  of  Christ.  We 
defy  our  adversaries  to  adduce  a  single  valid  proof  of  such  an 
intention.  She  held  that  the  Roman  see  had  no  right  to  com- 
plain of  the  suppression  of  its  jurisdiction  in  England  ;^  and 
if  the  bishops  of  that  church,  and  their  adherents  and  subjects 
throughout  Europe,  viewed  us  as  schismatic  and  excommuni- 
cated, under  an  exaggerated  and  erroneous  opinion  that  it  was 
necessary  for  every  church  to  be  obedient  to  the  successor  of 
Peter  at  Rome  ;  this  was  to  be  lamented,  but  it  could  not  render 
the  catholic  church  of  these  realms  schismatical. 

V.  It  may  be  alleged  that  the  removal  of  the  bishop  of 
Rome's  name  from  the  ritual  offices  of  the  church,  was  an  act 
of  schism,  implying  separation  from  the  rest  of  the  church. 
But  I  answer  that  this  removal  was  not  for  the  purpose  of  in- 
sulting the  Roman  bishop,  or  rejecting  his  communion  ;  but  it 
followed  as  a  necessary  consequence  from  the  suppression  of 


poris  statutum  est,  cessante  necessitate  debet  cessare  pariter.  1  qu.  1.  quod 
de  necessitate.  According  to  the  same  canon  law,  long  custom  does  not 
create  a  privilege.  Dist.  c.  contra  morem ;  64  di.  quia ;  9  qu.  3  coq- 
queslus. 

X  See  the  letter  of  bishop  Tunstall,  which  will  be  presently  cited. 


CHAP,  II.]    SUPPRESSION  OF  THE   PAPAL  JURISDICTION,  411 

his  jurisdiction  ;  for  had  especial  prayer  been  continued  for  him 
€xchisive  of  the  other  bishops  of  the  cathohc  church,  and  under 
the  designation  of  "  pope,"  which  had  for  some  time  been  con- 
nected with  the  notion  of  his  supreme  jurisdiction  over  all 
Christians  ;  it  could  not  have  failed  to  be  construed  into  a  tacit 
admission  of  that  authority  which  had  been  removed ;  and 
would  have  tended  to  foster  in  the  minds  of  the  ignorant,  a  no- 
tion so  subversive  of  the  character  and  due  authority  of  the 
church  of  England. 

VI.  But  further,  I  deny  absolutely  that  the  church  of  Eng- 
land did,  either  in  fact  or  in  intention,  separate  herself  from  the 
communion  of  the  rest  of  the  catholic  church.  She  excom- 
municated no  other  Western  churches,  none  of  their  clergy  or 
people  were  ever  refused  Christian  intercourse  or  communion 
by  her.  She  did  not  fail  to  recognize  them  as  churches  of 
Christ,  and  to  acknowledge  that  it  was  the  duty  of  Christians 
to  remain  united  to  them.  Even  Henry  VIII.  never  dreamed 
of  separating  from  the  church.  These  are  facts  which  shall 
be  proved  forthwith. 

We  find  in  the  "  Institution  of  a  Christian  Man,"  approved 
by  twenty-one  archbishops  and  bishops  in  1537,  (several  years 
after  the  abolition  of  the  papal  jurisdiction,)  the  following  pas- 
sage. "  Therefore  I  do  believe  that  the  church  of  Rome  is 
not,  nor  cannot  worthily  be  called  the  catholic  church,  but  only 
a  particular  member  thereof,  and  cannot  challenge  or  vindicate 
of  right,  and  by  the  word  of  God,  to  be  head  of  this  universal 
church,  or  to  have  any  authority  over  the  other  Churches  of 
Christ  which  be  in  England,  France,  Spain,  or  in  any  other 
realm.  .  .  .*  And  I  believe  also  that  the  said  church  of  Rome, 
with  all  the  other  particular  churches  in  the  world,  compacted 
and  united  together,  do  make  and  constitute  but  one  catholic 
or  church  hodyP^     This  bears  the  signatures,  among  others,  of 


>•  "  The  Institution  of  a  Christian  Man,"  p.  55.     Formularies  of  Faith, 
Oxford,  1825. 


412  THE   BRITISH    REFORMATION.  "    •      [PART  IT. 

Cranmer,  Latimer,  Shaxton,  Bradford,  May,  and  Cox,  who  were 
all  warm  supporters  of  a  reformation  in  the  church. 

The  "  Necessary  Doctrine  and  Erudition,"*    approved  by 
the  bishops   of   England,    1543,  acknowledges  the  particular 
churches  of  England,  Spain,  Italy,  Poland,  Portugal,  and  Rome, 
to    be   parts  of    the  catholic   church,    "  notwithstanding  that 
among  them  is  great  distance  of  place,  diversity  of  traditions, 
not  in  all  things  unity  of  opinions,  alteration  in  rites,  ceremo- 
nies, and  ordinances,  or  estimation  of  the  same,  as  one  church 
peradventure  doth  esteem  their  rites,  traditions,  laws,  ordinan- 
ces, and  ceremonies  to  be  of   more  force   and  efficacy  than 
another  church  doth  esteem  the  same."     It  is  added  that  these 
particular  churches  are  "  members  of  the  whole  catholic  church, 
and  each  of  them  by  himself  is  also  worthily  called  a  catholic 
church,  when  they  merely  profess  and  teach  the  faith  and  reli- 
gion of  Christ,  according  to  Scripture  and  the  apostolic  doc- 
trine.    And  so  every  Christian  man  ought  to  honour,  give  cre- 
dence,   and   follow   the   particular   church   of    that  region  so 
ordered  (as  afore)  wherein  he  is  born  or  inhabiteth.'''^     It  is 
incredible,  nay  impossible,  that  a  church  which  acknowledged 
all  those  other  Western  churches  as  parts  of  the  one  catholic 
church,   and  held   the  faithful  in  every  country  bound  to  obey 
and  follow  them,  should  design  or  practice  any  separation  from 
their  communion.     It  is  obvious  that  the  sole  intention  was,  to 
suppress   the   novel  or   usurped  jurisdiction   of    the   Roman 
bishop,  not  to  separate  from  his  communion  or  from  that  of  the 
other  Western  churches. 

That  Henry  VIII.  did  not  design  to  separate  from  the  catho- 
lic church,  appears  by  his  protest  against  the  council  called  to 
assemble  at  Mantua,  a.d.  1536,  in  which  he  declared  that  he 
most  heartily  desired  a  true  general  council,  and  that  he  would 
preserve  all  the  articles  of  the  faith  in  his  kingdom.''  And  it  is 
further  confirmed  by  the  learned  and  excellent  letter  written  by 

^  Ibid.  p.  217.  «  Ibid.  p.  248. 

^  Burnet's  Hist.  Ref.  vol.  i.  p.  400.     See  Collier,  vol.  ii.  Rec.  38. 


CHAP.  II.]     CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  DID  NOT  SEPARATE.  413 

Tunstall,  bishop  of  Durham,  by  the  king's  desire,  to  cardinal 
Pole,  dated  13th  July,  1536,  where  he  speaks  thus  :    . 

"  In  all  your  book,  your  purpose  is  to  bring  the  king's  grace 
hy  penance  home  unto  the  church  again,  as  a  man  clearly  sepa- 
rate from  the  same  already.     And  his  recess  from  the  church 
ye  prove  not  otherwise  than  by  the  fame  and  common  opinion 
of  those  parts,  who  be  far  from  the  knowledge  of  the  truth  of 
our  affairs  here,"  &c.  ..."  Ye  presuppose  for  a  ground  the 
king's  grace  to  be  swerved  from  the  uniti/  of  Christ's  church, 
and  that  in  taking  upon  him  the  title  of  supreme  head  of  the 
church  of  England,  he  intendeth  to  separate  his  church  of  Eng- 
land from  the  unity  of  the  whole  body  of  Christendom  ;  taking 
upon  him  the  ofSce  belonging  unto  spiritual  men,  grounded  in 
the  Scripture  of  immediate  cure  of  souls,  and  attribute  to  him-  ' 
self  that  belongeth  to  priesthood,  as  to  preach  and  teach  the 
word  of  God,  and  to  minister  the  sacraments  ;  and  that  he  doth 
not  know  what  belongeth  to  a  Christian  king's  office,  and  what 
unto  priesthood  ;    wherein  surely  both  you  and  all  others  so , 
thinking  of  him  do  err  too  far,"  &c.  ..."  His  full  purpose 
and  intent  is,  to  see  the  laws  of  Almighty  God  purely  and  sin- 
cerely preached  and  taught,  and  Christ's  faith  without  blot  kept 
and  observed  in  his  realm  ;  and  not  to  separate  himself  or  his 
realm  any  wise  from  the  unity  of  Chrisfs  catholic  church,  but 
inviolably,  at  all  times,  to  keep  and  observe  the  same  ;  and  to 
redeem  his  church  of  England  out  of  all  captivity  of  foreign 
powers  heretofore  usurped  therein,  into  the  Christian  state  that 
all  churches  of  all  realms  were  in  the  beginning,  and  to  abolish 
and  clearly  put  away  such  usurpations  as  heretofore  in  this 
realm  the  bishops  of  Rome  have,  by  many  undue  means,  in- 
creased to  their  great  advantage,"  &c.  ..."  Wherefore  since 
the  king's  grace  goeth  about  to  reform  his  realm  and  reduce  the 
church  of  England  into  that  state  that  both  this  realm  and  all 
others  were  in  at  the  beginning  of  the  faith,  and  many  hundred 
years  after  ;  if  any  prince  or  realm  ivill  not  folloiv  him,  let 
them  do  as  they  list ;  he  doth  nothing  but  stablisheth  such  laws 
as  were  in  the  beginning,  and  such  as  the  bishop  of  Rome  pro- 


414  THE  BRITISH  REFORMATION.    "  [PART  II. 

fesselli  to  observe.  Wherefore  neither  the  bishop  of  Rome 
himself  nor  other  prince  ought  of  reason  to  be  miscontent  here- 
with.''" 

This  proves  sufficiently  that  neither  the  church  of  England, 
nor  king  Henry  VIII.,  had  any  notion  of  separating  themselves 
from  the  communion  of  the  rest  of  Christendom  when  they 
removed  the  papal  jurisdiction,  which  they  justly  held  to  be  in 
most  respects  an  usurpation  and  innovation,  and  altogether 
unsupported  by  Scripture  or  universal  tradition.  They  did 
not  uncharitably  declaim  against  other  churches  which  were 
unable  or  unwilling  to  remove  the  Roman  jurisdiction,  or  cor- 
rect abuses  ]^  but  they  held  themselves  justified  in  resuming 
the  exercise  of  those  rights  and  liberties  which  they  had  in  the 
beginning,  and  which  the  canons  of  general  councils  supported. 
Nothing  could  be  more  reasonable,  or  more  consistent  with 
the  unity  and  due  authority  of  the  catholic  church  ;  but  it  was 
considered  by  the  Roman  see,  and  its  adherents,  an  act  of 
schism — a  revolt — because  they  were  imbued  with  the  modern 
opinion,  that  it  was  necessary  to  salvation  to  be  obedient  to  the 
bishop  of  Rome.  Their  error,  however,  was  not  the  judgment 
of  the  catholic  church ;  and,  however  we  may  lament  it,  and 
make  some  allowance  for  their  mistake,  we  were  in  no  degree 
bound  to  submit  to  it.  • 

Neither  does  it  appear,  by  any  evidence,  that  the  church  of 
England,  afterwards,  during  the  Reformation,  separated  herself 
from  the  other  Western  Churches,  or  refused  to  acknowledge 
them  as  parts  of  the  catholic  church.  The  separation  was  on 
their  side,  not  on  ours,  as  we  shall  see. 


•^  Burnet,  vol.  iii.  Records,  52.  p.  160 — 163. 

d  Even  the  act  of  parliament  1  Edw.  VI.  c.  1.  establishing  the  adminis- 
tration of  the  Eucharist  in  both  kinds,  on  the  ground  of  Christ's  institution 
and  primitive  practice,  adds  the  following  words  :  "  Not  condemning  hereby 
the  usage  of  any  church  out  of  the  king's  majesty's  dominions ;"  so  care- 
ful even  were  the  parliaments  not  to  violate  the  unity  of  the  church.  It 
should  be  added,  that  this  act  is  attributed  to  the  pen  of  Cranraer,  Arch- 
bishop of  Canterbury. — Le  Bas'  Cranmer,  i.  293. 


CHAP.  II.]        CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  DID  NOT  SEPARATE.  415 

VII.  It  may  be  objected  that  this  church  was  schismatical,  in 
refusing  to  send  bishops  to  attend  the  general  council  of  Trent, 
where  the  other  churches  of  Europe  were  assembled  by  repre- 
sentation. In  reply,  I  ask  whether  the  Gallican  church  was 
schismatical  in  refusing,  till  the  year  1562,  to  send  bishops  to 
Trent  ?*=  Was  the  German  church  schismatic  from  1545  to 
1563,  in  not  receiving  during  that  time  the  decrees  of  the 
synod,  or  acknowledging  it  as  oecumenical  V  Were  the  Galli- 
can, and  German,  and  English  churches  schismatical,  in  send- 
ing no  bishops  to  the  council  of  Florence  ?^ 

I  maintain  that  national  churches  are  not  under  any  absolute 
obligation  to  send  representatives  to  general  synods  summoned 
by  the  papal  authority,  as  the  invariable  practice  of  the  West- 
em  churches  sufficiently  proves  ;  and  certainly  not  if  the  tem- 
poral prince  withholds  his  permission.  It  was  at  this  time 
unlawful  to  depart  from  the  kingdom  without  royal  license  ; 
and  the  temporal  rulers,  offended  justly  by  the  decree  of  ex- 
communication and  deposal  passed  by  the  Roman  pontiffs 
against  Henry  VIII.^  and  threatened  against  Elizabeth,'  could 
not  reasonably  be  expected  to  give  any  permission  to  obey  the 
papal  summons.  Besides  this,  it  was  evident  that  the  council 
consisted  chiefly  of  creatures  of  the  Roman  pontiff,  and  that 


e  Henry  11.  king  of  France,  in  1553,  informed  the  bishops  assembled  at 
Trent,  that  no  French  prelate  should  be  permitted  to  assist  there  ;  and  his 
ambassador  formally  protested  in  his  name  against  its  authority. — Fleury, 
Uv.  146,  sect.  120,  121.     See  Bramhall's  Works,  p.  110. 

•"  In  1547,  the  decrees  of  the  synod  of  Trent  were  not  yet  received  by 
the  German  nation.— Fleury,  Hist.  Eccl.  liv.  144,  sect.  87.     The  Interim 

published  in  1548,  by  Charles  V.  is  another  proof  to  the  same  effect. 

Ibid.  liv.  145,  sect.  18,  &c.     The  legates,  at  the  opening  of  the  synod  of 
Trent,  1562,  were  afraid  to  declare  it  a  continnation  of  the  former  synod 
there,  lest  it  should  offend  the  Germans  and  French. — Fleury,  liv.  157 
sect.  105. 

6  Fleury,  liv.  107,  sect.  54.  These  churches  acknowledged  the  rival 
synod  of  Basle.— Fleury,  1.  107,  sect.  71  ;  108,  sect.  50. 

i  Burnet,  Hist.  Ref.  vol.  i.  p.  446—9. 

i  Ibid.  vol.  ii.  p.  673. 


416  THE  BRITISH  REFORMATION.  [pART  II. 

its  oecumenicity  and  authority  was  doubted  or  rejected  in 
France,  Germany,  Sweden,  and  other  parts  of  Europe. 

However,  had  this  council  really  appeared  ultimately  to  be 
truly  oecumenical  and  catholic,  in  any  of  its  sessions,  and  to 
have  proceeded  legitimately  and  synodically,  the  church  of 
England  still  had  the  power  of  accepting  its  decrees  ;  therefore 
there  is  no  evidence  of  schism  in  our  not  attending  that  synod. 
And  if  the  church  of  England,  not  acknowledging  any  of  the 
sessions  before  1562,  and  having  no  confidence  in  the  proceed- 
ings there,  made  reformations  in  doctrine  and  discipline  inde- 
pendently, the  same  had  been  recently  done  in  the  diet  of 
Augsburg,''  and  by  the  provincial  synods  of  Augsburg  and 
Mayence^  in  Germany,  and  in  France.  The  Colloquy  of 
Poissy  was  convened  by  the  queen  in  1561,  with  the  intention 
of  "  providing  in  particular  for  the  kingdom  of  France,  without 
the  authority  of  the  holy  see  and  the  council  ;""^  and,  accord- 
ingly, the  prelates  of  France  there  assembled,  made  regulations 
concerning  discipline,  and  published  a  confession  of  faith. "^ 

VIII.  It  is  objected  by  Bossuet,  that  the  principle  on  which 
the  whole  Reformation  of  the  church  of  England  was  con- 
ducted, is  schismatical ;  viz.  that  every  national  church  was  a 
complete  body  in  itself,  and  might  with  the  authority  and  con- 
currence of  its  head  and  king,  examine  and  reform  errors  and 
corruptions  in  doctrine  and   worship.     This,  it  is  said,  is  a 

^  The  Interim,  a  formulary  of  doctrine  as  well  as  discipline,  was  decreed 
by  Emperor  Charles  V.  and  the  diet  of  Augsburg,  1548. — Fleury,  liv. 
145,  sect.  20. 

1  The  provincial  synod  of  Augsburg,  under  Cardinal  Otho,  received 
the  Interim,  a.d.  1548. — Fleury,  1.  145,  sect.  37,  &c.  The  synod  of  May- 
ence,  in  the  same  year,  under  the  Archbishop  of  Mayence,  made  forty- 
seven  articles  or  decrees  concerning  doctrine,  and  fifty-seven  concerning 
reform  of  discipline. — Ibid.  sect.  89,  &c. 

■^  Bossuet,  Variations,  liv.  ix.  sect.  90, 

°  Fleury,  Hist.  Eccl.  1.  157,  sect.  35,  36.  Many  of  the  prelates  assem- 
bled at  Poissy  were  of  opinion,  that  communion  in  both  kinds  might  be 
restored  by  a  royal  edict. — Ibid.  37. 


CHAP.  11.]  .  ISOT  SCHISMATICAL.  .;  *  417 

schismatical  principle,  because  it  constitutes  a  principle  of 
unity  under  a  temporal  head,  which  the  Gospel  has  not  estab- 
lished ;  and  a  national  church,  in  regulating  its  doctrines  pri- 
vately, and  apart,  and  without  considering  the  doctrine  of  the 
rest  of  the  church,  separates  itself  from  the  universal  church, 
and  renounces  the  unity  of  faith  and  doctrine." 

In  reply,  I  observe,  first,  that  this  principle  introduces  no 
new  species  of  unity  in  connecting  the  reformation  of  doctrine 
and  discipline  with  the  sanction  of  the  temporal  ruler,  because 
this  sanction  was  necessary  to  give  them  temporal  and  legal 
force. p  In  no  other  respect  did  the  church  of  England  ever 
deem  their  sanction  necessary. 

Secondly,  I  observe  that  it  is  admitted  by  our  opponents, 
that  provincial  and  national  synods  have,  by  immemorial  prac- 
tice of  the  catholic  church,  the  right  of  condemning  heresies 
and  errors, 1  and  of  correcting  abuses  of  all  kinds  in  particular 
churches.  Paul  of  Samosata,  Photinus,  Sabelhus,  Arius, 
Eustathius,  Apollinaris,  the  Donatists,  Pelagians,  &c.  were  all 
condemned  in  particular  councils,  in  the  first  instance.  The 
particular  councils  of  Aries,  Orange,  Carthage,  Toledo,  Gan- 
gra,  &c.  made  judgments  in  controversies  of  faith  ;  not  to  speak 
of  more  recent  decisions  of  the  same  kind.  But,  it  is  alleged, 
these  synods  never  acted  without  regarding  the  church's  faith  ; 
they  sent  their  decrees  to  other  churches  for  confirmation.''  We 
reply,  that  the  church  of  England  cannot  be  proved  to  have  des- 
pised the  faith  of  the  church  at  large,  nor  to  have  made  reforma- 
tions in  doctrine  without  properly  considering  it.     It  was  the 


°  Bossuet,  Variations,  vii.  s.  68. 

P  Thus  the  prelates  of  France,  assembled  at  Poissy  (a.d.  1561),  peti- 
tioned the  king  to  approve  the  regulations  in  discipline,  and  the  confession 
of  faith  which  they  had  agreed  on.     Fleury,  Hist.  1.  157,  s.  37. 

q  Bossuet,  Variations,  vii.  s.  69  ;  and  Defensio  Declar.  Cler.  Galilean, 
lib.  iii.  c  2.  This  point  is  well  treated  by  Laud,  Conference,  sect.  24,  n^ 
4,5. 

■■  Bossuet,  ibid. 

VOL.  I. — 53 


418  THE    BRITISH    REFORMATION.  [PART  11. 

essential  principle  of  the  English  Reformation  throughout,  that 
the  doctrine  and  tradition  of  the  catholic  church  of  Christ,  in  all 
ages,  were  to  be  obediently  followed,  as  I  shall  make  evident 
hereafter.  Even  the  parliarnent,  which  suppressed  the  papal 
jurisdiction,  declared,  "  that  they  did  not  hereby  intend  to  vary 
from  Christ's  church,  about  the  articles  of  the  catholic  faith  of 
Christendom."^  King  Henry  VIII.  declared,  a.  d.  1536,  that 
"while  he  lived  he  would  adhere  to  the  faith  and  doctrine  which 
had  always  been  embraced  by  the  true  and  catholic  church."' 
The  church  of  England,  in  1543,  declared  the  unity  of  the 
catholic  church  to  consist  chiefly  in  unity  of  doctrine  ;  and  that 
particular  churches  ought  not  to  vary  from  one  another  in  the 
said  doctrine,  so  accepted  and  allowed.'*  And  in  1562,  the 
church  of  England  declared,  that  "  the  church  has  authority  in 
controversies  of  faith."''  Accordingl)'',  when  Cranmer  appealed 
to  a  general  council,  against  the  judgment  of  the  Roman  pontiff, 
his  language  was  this  :  "  I  intend  to  speak  nothing  against  one 
holy  catholic  and  apostolical  church,  or  the  authority  thereof, 
the  which  authority  I  have  in  great  reverence,  and  to  whom  my 
mind  is  in  all  things  to  obey'''^  .  .  .  and  again  :  "  I  protest  that 
it  was  never  my  mind  to  write,  speak,  or  understand  any  thing 
contrary  to  the  most  holy  word  of  God,  or  else  against  the  holy 
cathohc  church  of  Christ."* 

But,  while  it  is  evident  that  the  church  of  England  did  not 
act  without  considering  the  doctrine  of  the  church  in  all  ages, 
still  the  examples  of  ancient  councils  prove,  that  it  was  not  ne- 
cessary to  wait  for  the  reformation  of  errors  and  abuses,  until 
the  judgment  of  the  existing  universal  church  was  made 
known  by  means  of  an  oecumenical  council.  And  if  the  church 
of  England  did  not  send  her  decrees  of  doctrine  to  other 
churches  for  their  approbation,   the   reason  was,   because  this 


»  Burnet,  Hist.  Ref.  vol.  i.  p.  265. 

'  Collier,  Ecd  Hist.  vol.  ii.  Rec.  38. 

"  Formularies  of  Faith,  p.  246.  ^  Article  XX. 

"  Cranmer's  Works  by  Jenk>Tis,  vol.  iv.  p.  121.  "  Ibid.  126,  137. 


GHAP.  II.]         SCHISM  RETORTED   ON  OUR  ADVERSARIES.  419 

discipline  was  obsolete  in  the  church  ;  and,  besides,  several  of 
these  churches  viewed  us  as  schismatics,  and  would  have  re- 
fused any  act  of  communion. 

IX.  But,  it  is  suggested,  the  judgment  of  the  universal  church 
might  have  been  known  without  waiting  for  a  general  council, 
by  the  decree  of  the  pope,  accepted  by  all  the  bishops  of  the 
catholic  church. y  Now,  my  reply  to  this  is,  that  the  judgment 
of  the  bishop  of  Rome  alone,  would  not,  in  the  opinion  of  the 
church  of  England,  have  been  of  greater  authority  than  that  of  her 
own  provincial  or  national  synods  ;  and  the  notion  of  the  papal 
decrees,  in  matters  of  doctrine,  deriving  infallibility  from  the 
acceptance  of  all  other  bishops,  was  at  that  time  almost  un- 
known.'^ Besides  this,  the  bishop  of  Rome  had  separated  him- 
self from  our  churches,  and  being  out  of  our  communion,  we 
could  not  invite  his  co-operation. 

X.  But  we  are  now  to  examine  the  question  in  another  point 
of  view ;  and  having  cleared  the  church  of  England  from  these 
charges,  to  retort  them  on  her  adversaries. 

The  pretensions,  exactions,  and  usurpations  of  the  Roman 
pontiffs,  in  England  and  elsewhere,  were  evidently  founded  in 
the  unholy  passions  of  ambition,  avarice,  and  the  pride  of  earthly 
domination.  They  reasoned  not  merely  on  false  principles  in 
maintaining  it,  but  made  use  of  forgeries,  acknowledged  to  be 
such  by  the  most  enlightened  of  their  own  communion,*  and  of 
temporal -force,  exciting  insurrections  against  the  sovereigns 
who  resisted  it,  depriving  them  of  their  dominions,  proclaiming 
crusades  against  them.  Therefore  the  origin  of  the  Roman 
ordinary  jurisdiction  over  particular  churches,  was  unholy. 

The  principle  of  obedience  to  the  Roman  pontiff,  as  the  true 

y  Bossuet,  Variations,  vii.  s.  70. 

*  This  notion  seems  to  have  been  developed  only  in  the  Jansenistic  con- 
troversy. It  was  most  certainly  not  generally  agreed  on  even  at  that  time 
in  the  Roman  obedience. 

"  See  Fleury,  Discours  IV.  sur  I'Hist.  Ecclesiastique  ;  Hist.  Eccl.  1.  44, 
n.  22 ;  Du  Pin,  Bibliotheque  ;  and  especially  Van  Espen,  Tractatus  Histo- 
rico-Canonicus  in  Canones,  &c.     Pars  iv.  c.  1.  Oper.  torn.  v.  p.  12-3,  &o. 


420  THE    BRITISH    REFORMATION.  .  [PART  II. 

test  of  catholic  unity,  was  a  principle  tending  to  schism.  It 
was  never  taught  by  tl^p  Gospel,  and  it  was  injurious  to  the 
catholic  communion  of  churches  ;  because  it  interrupted  that 
communion,  whenever  any  church  refused  to  submit  to  the  un- 
just pretensions  of  the  Roman  see.  This  principle  divided  the 
Western  from  the  Eastern  churches,  as  it  separated  several  of 
the  Western  churches  from  the  English  church. 

The  principle  of  papal  infallibility,  maintained  by  the  pontiffs 
and  their  partizans,  established  a  new  tribunal,  injurious  to  the 
authority  of  the  catholic  church  itself,  by  binding  that  church  to 
receive  implicitly  the  decrees  of  a  single  bishop,  instead  of  judg- 
ing them  by  the  catholic  doctrine  ;  and  it  tended  to  schism,  by 
obliging  those  who  received  it,  to  beheve  as  matters  of  faith, 
whatever  the  pontiffs  decreed  ;  and  therefore  to  reject,  as  hereti- 
cal, those  churches  which  did  not  receive  them. 

The  conduct  of  the  Roman  bishop  was  altogether  inconsist- 
ent with  fraternal  unity,  in  condemning  the  churches  of  England 
as  schismatical  and  heretical,  for  their  suppression  of  his  juris- 
diction in  England,  which  had  been  either  usurped  illegally,  or 
had  been  derived  from  the  same  church  which  now  withdrew 
her  commission.     It  was  absolutely  schismatical  in  the  Roman 
pontiffs  to  send  missionaries  to  England  and  Ireland,  to  excite 
divisions  in  these  churches,   and  withdraw  the  people  from  the 
obedience  of  their  legitimate  pastors.     It  was  grievously  schis- 
matical to  ordain  bishops  and  clergy  for  the  sects  thus  formed, 
and  to  recognize  them  as  churches  of  Christ,  and  to  give,  or 
encourage  them  to  assume,  the  name  of  catholic.     Thus,  in  re- 
lation to  the  church  of  England,  the  pontiffs  were  guilty  of  the 
most  irregular  proceedings,  and  the  most  inconsistent  with  the 
principles  of  fraternal  charity  that  well  can  be  imagined.     We 
know  indeed,  and  can  make  allowance  for  the  opinions  relating 
to  the  Roman  power,  then  commonly  prevalent ;  and  therefore 
we  do  not  involve  in  the  charge  of  real  schism,  all  who  sanctioned 
these  proceedings  ;  but  the  imputation  of  actual,  though  not  al- 
ways of  formal  schism,  rests  on  all  .those  who  took  a  part  in  ex- 


CHAP.  II.]  THE  ROMISH  SECT  SCHISMATICAL.  421 

citing  divisions  and  separations  from  the   catholic  churches  of 
these  realms. 

XI.  Finally,  the  Romish  party  in  these  countries  committed 
schism  in  separating  from  the  communion  of  the  church,  and 
the  obedience  of  their  legitimate  pastors,  in  the  reign  of  Eliza- 
beth. It  is  certain,  that  during  the  reigns  of  Henry  VIII.  and 
successors,  until  the  eleventh  year  of  Queen  Elizabeth's  reign, 
there  v\^ere  not  two  separate  communions  and  worships  in  Eng- 
land. All  the  people  were  subject  to  the  same  pastors,  attend- 
ed the  same  churches,  and  received  the  same  sacraments.  It 
was  only  about  1570  that  the  Romish  party,  at  the  instigation 
of  foreign  emissaries,  separated  itself  and  fell  from  the  catholic 
church  of  England.  This  is  proved  in  many  ways.  Lord 
Coke  in  1607  declared,  that  "generally  all  the  papists  in  this 
kingdom,  not  any  of  them  did  refuse  to  come  to  our  church, 
and  yield  their  formal  obedience  to  the  laws  established.  And 
thus  they  all  continued  ;  not  any  one  refusing  to  come  to  our 
churches  diuing  the  first  ten  years  of  her  majesty's  government. 
And  in  the  beginning  of  the  eleventh  year  of  her  reign,  Corn- 
wallis,  Bedingfield,  and  Silyarde,  were  the  first  recusants,  they 
absolutely  refusing  to  come  to  our  churches  ;  and  until  they  in 
that  sort  began,  the  name  of  recusant  was  never  heard  of  amongst 
us."''  Sir  E.  Coke  had  already  asserted  the  same  in  the  trial 
of  Henry  Garnet,  Jesuit,  in  1606,  when  he  said  that  before  the 
bull  of  Pius  v.,  "in  the  eleventh  year  of  the  queen,  wherein 
her  majesty  was  excommunicated  and  deposed,  and  all  they  ac- 
cursed who  should  yield  any  obedience  to  her  .  .  .  there  were 
no  recusants  in  England  ;  all  came  to  church  (howsoever  po- 
pishly  inclined  or  persuaded  in  most  points)  to  the  same  divine 
service  we  now  use  ;  but  thereupon  presently  they  refused 
to  assemble  in  our  churches  .  .  .  not  for  conscience  of  any- 
thing there  done,  against  which  they  might  justly  except  out  of 
the  word  of  God  ;    but  because  the  pope  had  excommunicated 


''  Coke,  speech  and  charge  at  Norwich  Assizes,  1607. 


422  THE    BRITISH    REFORMATION.  [PART  II. 

and  deposed  her  majesty,  and  cursed  those  who  should  obey 
her  ;  and  so  upon  this  bull  ensued  open  rebellion  in  the  North."'' 
The  Jesuit  Garnet  in  his  reply  said,  he  knew  some  persons 
who  before  that  bull  refused  to  go  to  church  all  the  time  of 
Queen  Elizabeth,  "though  perhaps  most  'cathohcs'  did  in- 
deed go  to  church  before."  He  pretended  that  it  had  been 
declared  unlawful  to  attend  our  churches,  by  certain  theologians 
at  the  synod  of  Trent  f  to  which  Coke  replied,  that  this  synod 
closed  in  the  fifth  year  of  Elizabeth,  whereas,  the  Romish  party 
in  Enffland  continued  to  come  to  our  churches  even  till  the 
nineteenth  year  of  her  reign. ^  And  Parsons  the  Jesuit,  in  his 
reply  to  Coke's  Reports,  having  asserted  that  some  individuals 
refused  to  attend  the  service  of  the  church  from  the  beginning 
of  that  reign,  adds  :  "  I  deny  not,  but  that  many  other  besides 
these,  throughout  the  realm,  though  otherwise  '  catholics '  in 
heart,  (as  most  then  were,)  did  at  that  time  and  after,  as  also 
now,  either  upon  fear,  or  lack  of  better  instruction,  or  both,  re- 
pair to  '  prolestant'  churches."^ 

But  the  fact  is  rendered,  if  possible,  more  certain  by  the 
queen's  instructions  to  Walsingham,  her  resident  at  the  French 
court  (11th  August,  1570,)  in  which  it  is  said  of  the  heads  of 
the  popish  party,  that  "  they  did  ordinarily  resort,  from  the  be- 
ginning of  her  reign,  in  all  open  places,  to  the  churches,  and  to 
divine  service  in  the  church,  without  any  contradiction  or  show 
of  mishking."^  And  about  the  same  time  a  royal  declaration, 
published  in  the  Star-chamber,  informs  us,  that  although  some 
persons  had  been  lately  questioned  by  the  council  on  matters  of 


c  State  Trials,  vol.  i.  p.  242.  (Trial  of  Henry  Garnet,  Jesuit.)  See 
also  Coke's  reports,  fifth  part,  p.  34,  35.  Bramhall  shows  the  treasonable 
principles  and  conduct  of  the  papists  during  the  remainder  of  Elizabeth's 
reign. — Works,  p.  183—165. 

d  Ibid.  p.  249.  .  ^  Ibid.  p.  252. 

f  Parson's  Answer  to  the  fifth  part  of  Sir  E.  Coke's  Reports,  p.  371. 
(1606.) 

g  Heylin,  History  of  the  Presbyterians,  p.  260. 


CHAP,  11.]  THE  ROMISH   SECT    SCHISMATICAL.  423 

religion,  it  had  been  occasioned  by  their  own  misbehaviour  : 
"  It  was  because  they  broke  the  laws,  because  they  declined 
coming  to  church,  to  common  prayer  and  divine  service,  as  they 
had  usually  done  for  nine  or  ten  years  together. "''  After  this 
it  is  needless  to  cite  the  concurrent  testimony  of  Bishop  Lance- 
lot Andrewes,*  Dr.  Heylin,''  Archbishop  BramhalV  &c. 

The  separation,  in  fact,  was  caused  by  the  exhortations  of 
the  seminary  priests,  whom  Dr.  Allen  began  to  send  into  Eng- 
land, from  his  college  at  Rheims,  in  1568  ;""  and  it  was  increas- 
ed by  the  Jesuits,  who  came  under  Parsons  and  Campion  in 
1580.  There  is  no  reason  to  suppose,  that  those  papists  who 
refused  the  oath  of  regal  supremacy  in  1559,  and  remained  in 
England,  separated  themselves  from  the  public  service  of  the 
church,  or  celebrated  any  other  worship  contrary  to  the  laws  of 
the  land-  The  separation  in  1570  is  uniformly  spoken  of  by 
the  queen  herself,  and  by  all  our  writers,  as  a  thing  novel  and 
unprecedented.  A  society  formed  in  this  manner,  by  voluntary 
separation  from  a  church  of  Christ,  was  totally  cut  off  from  the 
unity  of  the  catholic  church  ;  nor  is  it  to  be  alleged  in  reply, 
that  the  new  community  was  recognized  by  the  Roman  bishops 
and  some  of  the  V/estern  churches  ;  for  this  only  proves  that 
the  Roman  bishops  encouraged  schism,  and  the  other  churches 
were  misled  by  their  excessive  veneration  for  the  Roman  see, 
and  by  the  misrepresentations  of  the  enemies  of  the  church  of 
England  ;  therefore  their  sanction  to  the  new  community,  being 
given  on  erroneous  information,  could  not  afford  any  justifica- 
tion of  it. 


i>  Collier,  Eccl.  History,  ii.  p.  524. 

'  Andrewes,  Tortura  Torti,  p.  130. 

k  Heylin,  ut  supra.  For  several  of  the  preceding  proofs  I  am  indebted 
to  the  kindness  of  a  venerable  man,  whose  learning  and  piety  shed  lustre 
on  this  University. 

'  Works,  p.  241,  where  he  cites  a  contemporary  tract,  and  also  Cam- 
den's History,  to  prove  the  fact. 

m  Dodd,  Church  History,  ii.  p.  403. 


424  THE    BRITISH    REFORMATION.  [PART  II. 

It  is  evident  then,  that  the  whole  separation  or  schism  was 
originated  and  effected  by  the  Roman  pontiffs  and  their  adhe- 
rents, not  by  the  churches  among  us.  I  repeat  it,  as  a  fact 
which  ought  never  to  be  forgotten,  that  we  did  not  go  out 
FROM  THEM  ;  but,  as  the  apostle  says,  they  went  out  from 
us  ;"  thus  bearing  what  is,  as  Bossuet  well  observes,  the  inva- 
riable mark  of  schism  and  heresy  in  every  age  :°  "  Non  enim 
nos  ab  illis,  sed  illi  a  nobis  recesserunt."? 

Hence  it  follows  that  the  Romish  communities  in  England 
are  not  churches  of  Christ ;  and  we  have  an  additional  proof  of 
this  in  the  fact,  that  they  are  unable  to  show  any  succession  of 
the  episcopacy  in  their  conventicles.  The  pope  indeed  sent  a 
titular  bishop  to  them  in  1 625,  whose  successor  went  to  France 
in  1629,  and  returned  no  more  ;i  and  up  to  the  present  time  the 
Romish  community  has  not  had  any  bishops,  for  although  the 
vicars  apostolic  (as  they  call  themselves)  pretend  to  the  epis- 
copal character,  this  character  is  by  no  means  essential  to  their 
office  j'"  their  successors  may  be  priests  or  monks, ^  and  they 
have  no  ordinary  power  over  the  English  Romanists,  being 
merely  deputies  of  the  Roman  pontiff,  who  may  revoke  their 
commissions,  without  any  trial,  at  his  own  will  and  pleasure.' 


"  1  John  ii.  19. 

0  First  Pastoral  Instruction  on  the  promises  to  the  church.  ^■ 
p  Cyprianus  de  Unitate. 

1  See  Dodd's  Church  History. 

■  r  Benedict  XIV.  de  Synodo  Diocesana,  lib.  ii.  c  10,  where  he  says  they 
are  "interdum  quidem  sine  Episcopali  charactere  interdum  autem  hujus- 
modi  charactere  insigniti,  cum  titulo  tamen  alicujus  Ecclesiae  in  partibus 
infidelium  sitae,  ut  spirituale  regimen  gerant  alicujus  regionis,  cujus  episco- 
pus  et  pastor  proprius  non  existat." 

•  The  Vicar  Apostolic  (so  called)  in  Sweden  is  a  priest. — Parliamentary 
Report  on  Roman  Catholic  Subjects,  1816,  p.  452. 

'  In  1817  the  papists  of  the  London  district  petitioned  the  Roman  pon- 
tiff most  earnestly  not  to  remove  Dr.  Poynter  from  the  situation  of  Vicar 
Apostolic ;  to  which  he  was  pleased  to  reply,  that  he  had  no  intention  of 
doing  so. — See  Roman  Cath.  Magazine  for  1817,  p.  243. 


CHAP.  II.]       ROMAN  SECT  NOT  A  CHURCH.  425 

Consequently  as  vicars  apostolic  they  have  no  episcopal  juris- 
diction in  England ;  and  as  titular  bishops,  '  in  partibus  infide- 
lium,'  they  have  no  jurisdiction  any  where.  Therefore  they  are 
not,  properly  speaking,  bishops ;  and  the  Romanists  of  Eng- 
land are  devoid  of  any  apostolical  succession  of  bishops,  not  to 
speak  of  some  serious  difficulties  wrhich  affect  the  validity  of 
their  orders  in  these  countries,  and  w^hich  will  be  considered 
elsewhere.^ 


"See  Part  VI.  chapter  on  Romish  Ordinations. 


VOL.  I. — 54 


CHAPTER  III. 

ON    THE    ECCLESIASTICAL    SUPREMACY  AND    ACTS    OF  THE    CIVII. 
POWER    DURING     THE     REIGNS     OF     HENRY     VIII.    AND 

EDWARD    VI. 

.  In  considering  the  title  of  supreme  head  of  the  church  of 
England,  given  to  Henry  VIII.  by  the  clergy  of  England,  we 
must  be  careful  to  distinguish  the  sense  in  which  they  allowed 
it  the  king,  from  any  exaggerated  and  unsound  meaning  which 
may  have  been  affixed  to  it  by  courtiers  or  lawyers  :  for  the  for- 
mer only  is  the  church  of  England  responsible  ;  the  latter  she 
is  not  concerned  with. 

I.  When  it  was  proposed  to  the  clergy  of  the  Convocation  of 
Canterbuiy,  to  acknowledge  the  king  supreme  head  of  the 
church  and  clergy  of  England,  they  absolutely  refused  to  pass 
this  title  simply  and  unconditionally  ;  and,  after  much  discus- 
sion, the  king  was  at  last  obliged  to  accept  it  with  a  proviso, 
introduced  by  the  clergy,  to  the  following  effect :  "  Ecclesiag  et 
cleri  Anglicani  singularem  protectorem  et  unicum  et  supremum 
dominum,  et  {quantum  per  Chrisii  legefn  licet)  etiam  supre- 
mum caput,  ipsius  majestatem  recognoscimus."'* 

To  recognize  the  king  as  supreme  head  of  the  English 
church,  "  as  far  as  it  is  allowable  by  the  law  of  Christ,"  cer- 
tainly was  not  to  admit  his  right  to  interfere  with  the  spiritual 
jurisdiction  of  bishops,  or  with  any  of  the  laws,  liberties,  doc- 
trines, or  rites  of  the  church,  established  either  directly  or  indi- 
rectly by  the  law  of  Christ.  The  clergy  of  England  were 
entitled  to  beheve  that  they  had  saved  all  the  spiritual  rights  of 


a  Burnet,  Hist.  Refor.  vol.  iii.  p.  90 — 92,  and  vol.  i.  p.  205 ;  Collier,  vol. 
ii.  p.  62.  This  account  is  drawn  up  from  the  authentic  records  of  the  pro- 
ceedings of  convocation.  The  author  of  the  Antiquitates  Britanniae  (attri- 
buted to  Parker)  incorrectly  states  that  the  proposed  qualification,  "  quantum 
per  Christi  legem  licet,"  was  left  out  finally.  , .     - 


CHAP,  III.]  THE    REGAL  SUPREMACY.  427 

the  church  by  this  proviso  ;  and,  indeed,  we  learn  from  Burnet, 
that  "  those  who  adhered  to  their  former  notions,"  i.  e.  the  church 
generally,  ''understood  this  headship  to  be  only  a  temporal 
authority  in  temporal  matters,"^  I  shall  not  here  enter  on  the 
general  question  of  the  authority  of  the  king  in  ecclesiastical 
affairs,  which  will  be  discussed  elsewhere ;°  but  it  is  admitted 
by  the  theologians  and  canonists  of  the  Roman  obedience,  that 
Christian  kings  have  generally  a  supreme  power  of  external 
direction  in  such  matters.*^     It  has  been  shown  by  our  writers 


b  Burnet,  iii.  92.  Archbishop  Bramhall  terms  our  kings  "political  heads" 
of  the  English  church. — Works,  p.  25. 

c  See  Part  T. 

d  Stapleton,  Princip.  Doctr.  lib.  v.  c.  17 ;  Champney,  De  Vocat.  Ministr. 
c.  16 ;  Thomassin.  Eccl.  Discipl.tom.  ii.  lib.  3.  c.  92.  sect.  12,  &c. ;  Rech- 
berger  (chancellor  of  the  diocese  of  Lintz)  maintains  the  regal  power  of 
sup^kitendence  and  vigilance  over  the  transactions  and  decrees  of  the 
chulB,  of  enacting  laws  on  disciplinary  matters  for  the   church,  of  cor- 
recting abuses,  limiting  religious  rites,  enjoining  silence  in  controversies  of 
faith,  establishing  uniformity  in  divine  service,  abolishing  festivals,  &c. — 
See  Report  of  Committee  on  Rom.  Cath.  subjects  (1816),  pp.  80 — 114. 
De  Marca,  archbishop   of  Paris,  informs  us  that  Molinaeus,  Fauchetius, 
Pithoeus,  Hotmannus,  Servinus,  &c.;  who  were  all  eminent  writers  of  the 
Roman  communion,  teach  "  that  the  R.  pontiff  exercised  no  authority  in 
Gaul  before  the  sixth  century  ;  that  in  all  that  interval,  of  almost  600  years, 
the  king  alone  presided  over  the  Galilean  church  as  head.^' — Proleg.  ad  lib. 
de  Concord.  Sacerd.  et  Imp.  p.  71.     The  Answer  of  the  Prince  de  Kaunitz, 
chancellor  of  the  empire,  to  the  papal  nuncio  Garampi,  a.  d.  1781,  and  which 
is  referred  to  as  of  high  authority  in  Austria,  claims  for  the  prince  a  most 
extensive  supremacy  over  the  church.     It  asserts  that  "  the  reform  of 
abuses  which  do  not  concern  dogmatical  or  merely  spiritual  points  .  .  . 
belongs  exclusively  to  the  sovereign,  who  alone  commands,  and  alone  has 
the  right  to  command  in  the  state.     That  to  this  authority  belongs,  ivithout 
any  exception,  whatever  relates  to  the  external  discipline  of  the  clergy  ;" 
and  that  the  power  of  the  state  "  comprises  without  any  exception,  lohatever 
is  of  human  institution  in  the  Christian  church." — See  the  Report  above 
referred  to,  p.  144, 145,  The  government  of  Napoleon,  it  will  be  recollected, 
declared  that  the  French  sovereigns  regarded  themselves  as  "  les  eveques 
du  dehors,'''  and  always  exercised  power  over  the  clergy  in  matters  of  dis- 


428  THE    BRITISH    REFORMATION.  [PART  11. 

that  the  kings  of  England  always  were  the  supreme  political 
governors  or  heads  of  our  national  church.*^  The  most  learned 
lawyers,  Fitzherbert  and  Coke,  affirm,  that  the  law  confirming 
the  royal  supremacy  was  only  declaratory  of  the  ancient  laws 
of  England  ;^  and  Bossuet  himself  only  condemns  this  supre- 
macy on  the  erroneous  supposition  that  it  was  admitted  to  affect 
fundamentally  the  validity  of  all  ecclesiastical  acts,  not  if  it  were 
understood  to  relate  to  a  merely  external  direction  and  execution.^ 
Now,  it  is  incredible  that  the  clergy,  in  acknowledging  the 
supremacy  "  as  far  ns  it  is  allowalile  by  the  law  of  Christ," 
could  have  designed  to  admit  that  all  their  ecclesiastical  acts 
emanated  from,  or  were  fundamentally  affected  as  to  their  validity 
by  the  royal  power.  They  could  not  at  once  in  a  body  have 
relinquished  the  notions  which  had  always  hitherto  prevailed  ; 
and  there  is  evidence  that  they  did  not,  as  we  shall  see  in  dis- 
cussing the  royal  commissions  for  bishoprics.  Indeed,  king 
Henry  himself,  in  a  letter  to  Tunstall,  bishop  of  Darhan^^ho 
thought  the  title  of  "  Head"  could  not  with  propriety  be  given 
to  man,  unless  it  were  limited  to  temporals,  seems  to  restrain 
his  own  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction,  to  such  things  as  were  of  a 
temporal  or  of  a  mixed  nature,  such  as  the  assembling  of  con- 
vocations and  confirming  their  laws,^  the  appointment  of  bishops 


cipline,  worship,  &c. — Mem.  Eccl  de  France,  torn.  i.  p.  71.  [Above,  p. 
327,  note  ™ ;  this  "  external  Episcopate,"  claimed,  and  used  with  such  effect, 
by  Lewis  XIV.  was  based,  botli  name  and  thing  on  that  of  Constantine  and 
his  successors.] 

"  Archbishop  Bramhall,  Works,  p.  25. 69,  &c.  •       ' 

f  Ibid.  p.  77. 

e  Bossuet,  Variations,  1.  x.  n.  14. 

•"  Thomassin  observes  that  the  Gallican  convocations  or  assemblies  of 
the  clergy,  were  summoned  by  the  king,  that  they  exercised  no  acts  of  juris- 
diction, deliberated  and  concluded  on  nothing  without  the  king's  permission ; 
that  the  bishops  sought  in  vain  permission  to  hold  synods,  &c. — De  Eccl. 
Discipl.  1.  ii.  c.  56, 57.  In  fact,  during  the  whole  of  last  century  the  French 
bishops  were  petitioning  the  king  ineffectually  to  be  permitted  to  hold  pro- 
vincial synods.  See  also  Fleury,  Droit  Eccl.  ii.  c.  2,  and  25 ;  Van  Espen 
says  a  royal  minister  was  always  present  in  the  synods  of  Belgium,  which 


CHAP.  III.]  THE    REGAL  SUPREMACY.  429 

and  abbots,'  the  cognizance  of  causes  in  criminal  matters,  &c., 
in  all  of  which  he  was  actually,  as  he  said,  "Head,"  and  because 
there  was  no  one  above  him  here,  "  Supreme  Head."  And  he 
adds,  "  We  be  as  God's  law  suffereth  us  to  be,  whcreunto  we 
do  and  must  conform  ourselves,"''  apparently  desiring  that  the 
recognition  should  be  interpreted  in  no  offensive  or  unorthodox 
sense.  'Tunstall  was  so  far  satisfied  that  its  meaning  was 
sound  and  good,  that  he  consented,  in  1535,  to  swear  to  the 
royal  supremacy,  and  in  1 536  wrote  to  cardinal  Pole,  justifying 
the  king  against  the  charge  of  confounding  the  royal  and  priestly 
offices. 

The  intention  of  the  church  of  England  in  making  this  recog- 
nition was  only  to  admit  a  general  power  of  external  control  and 
direction  in  ecclesiastical  affairs  to  the  king,  without  relinquish- 
ing any  of  the  ancient  rights  of  the  church.  And  if  courtiers 
or  lawyers  pretended  to  understand  it  in  a  different  sense,  we 
are  in  no  degree  responsible  for  their  errors. 

II.  It  is  an  unfounded  assertion  of  our  adversaries  of  all 
denominations,  that  the  papal  power  luas  transferred  to  the 
king.  The  royal  supremacy  was  of  a  perfectly  distinct  nature 
from  the  papal  jurisdiction.  The  clergy  recognized  the  former, 
in  the  year  1531,  as  already  existing  ;  the  papal  jurisdiction 
continued  legally  to  exist  along  ivith  it  till  1534,  (of  which  we 
have  a  proof  in  the  fact  that  Cranmer,  in  the  judgment  on  king 
Henry's  marriage,  1533,  retained  the  title  of  "  legate  of  the 
apostohc  see").  It  was  then  suppressed,  not  transferred  to 
the  king.  The  kings  of  England  did  not  at  any  time  pretend 
to  succeed  to  the  authority  of  the  popes,  but  to  that  of  their  own 
royal  predecessors. 


were  summoned  with  the  royal  license  ;  and  their  decrees  were  of  no  force 
till  confirmed  by  the  king.— Jus.  Canon,  p.  i.  tit.  20.  c.  4.  s.  3.  5.  See  also 
Bramhall,  Works,  103.  112.  318.  319. 

•  The  antiquity  of  this  right,  extending  to  the  Norman  conquest,  is  sho^vn 
by  Thomassin.  Eccl.  Discipl.  t.  ii.  1.  ii.  c.  34.     See  also  Bramliall,  75. 107. 

314.  316. 

^  The  letter  of  the  king  is  found  in  the  collection  styled  Cabala. 


430  THE  BRITISH  REFORMATION.  [PART  II. 

III.  In  1533,  the  king  was  given  by  act  of  parliament  the 
power  of  appointing  delegates  to  hear  appeals  from  the  metro- 
politan courts  of  England  in  case  of  "  lack  of  justice  there" 
(Act  25  Hen.  VIII.  c.  19).  But  this  was  merely  the  principle 
of  the  appel  comme  (Tabus  so  long  practised  in  France,  Ger- 
many, and  all  the  other  countries  of  the  Roman  obedience  ;^  and 
bishop  Gibson  observes  that  by  the  law  these  delegates  ought 
to  be  spiritual  persons,  and  that  in  fact  there  were  no  traces  of 
nobility  or  common  law  judges  in  commission  till  1604,  seventy 
years  after  this  act,  and  then  not  one  in  forty  cases  till  1639, 
when  that  court  began  to  include  ordinarily,  laity  as  well  as 
clergy.™ 

IV.  The  act  of  parliament  1534,  confirming  the  royal  su- 


1  See  Van  Espen's  Tractatus  de  Recursu  ad  Principem,  where  it  is 
shown  that  the  appeal  to  the  temporal  power  from  the  unjust  decrees,  depo- 
sitions, excommunications,  &c.  of  the  ecclesiastical  authorities,  is  practised 
in  every  country  of  the  Roman  obedience.  See  also  Fleury,  Droit  Eccl. 
torn.  ii.  c  xxiv.  The  appel  comme  cTahus  has  existed  since  the  fourteenth 
century,  and  the  appeals  were  heard  by  the  French  parliaments.  It  is  es- 
tablished in  Austria. — Rechberger,  Enchir.  Jur.  Eccl.  Austr.  The  king  of 
Sicily  from  the  foundation  of  that  monarchy,  has  judged  finally  in  all  eccle- 
siastical causes  in  his  "  Tribunal  of  the  Monarchy,"  and  cardinal  Baronius 
observes,  that  "  under  the  name  of  monarchy,  besides  that  one  monarch 
which  all  the  faithful  have  ever  acknowledged  as  the  only  visible  head  in 
the  church,  another  head  is  risen  up,  and  brought  into  the  kingdom  of  Sicily, 
for  a  monster  and  a  prodigy." — See  Bramhall,  Works,  p.  114.  Yet 
notwithstanding,  the  Sicilian  church  is  not  accounted  heretical  by  Ro- 
manists. 

"  Gibson,  Codex,  vol.  i.  p.  xxi.  Bossuet  therefore  in  vain  accuses  the 
church  of  England  of  giving  the  king  the  power  of  excommunication,  Va- 
riat.  vii.  n.  47,  48.  The  king  never  excommunicates  with  us,  but  only  the 
royal  court,  which  comprises  ecclesiastics.  The  king  of  Sicily  excommu- 
nicates in  the  "  tribunal  of  the  monarchy."  In  Austria  no  one  can  be  ex- 
communicated without  the  emperor's  consent,  and  the  motives  of  excom- 
munication must  be  previously  discussed  by  an  equal  number  of  ecclesias- 
tical and  civil  commissioners. — Rechberger,  Enchir.  Jur.  Eccl.  Austr.  s. 
259.  Bramhall  understands  this  act  only  to  give  the  king  the  power  of 
appointing  bishops  to  rehear  causes. — Works,  p.  63. 


CHAP.  III.]  .     SUBMISSION  OF  CLERGY.  431 

premacy,  gave  the  king  power  to  "  visit  and  reform  all  heresies, 
errors,  and  other  abuses,  which  in  the  spiritual  jurisdiction 
ought  to  be  reformed."'^  This,  it  is  alleged,  was  an  impious 
attempt  to  invest  the  king  with  real  internal  spiritual  jurisdic- 
tion. But  the  church  must  have  undoubtedly  understood  this 
act  only  to  confer  on  the  king  the  power  of  acting  in  these 
matters  as  his  predecessors  had  done,  i.  e.  by  temporal  means 
and  penalties,  and  in  concurrence  with  the  judgment  of  the 
church  of  England,  not  in  opposition  to  it.  The  bishops  under- 
stood it  in  some  such  sense,  for  they  not  only  offered  no  opposi- 
tion to  the  passing  of  this  bill,  but  immediately  after  swore  to 
the  king's  supremacy." 

V.  Their  acknowledgment  that  all  convocations  had  been 
and  ought  to  be  assembled  by  the  king's  writ,^  apparently  relat- 
ed only  to  convocations  or  assemblies  of  the  clergy  convened 
by  the  king,  as  one  of  the  three  estates  of  the  realm  to  parlia- 
ment ;  it  does  not  seem  that  synods  are  here  spoken  of :  but  at 
all  events,  as  I  have  observed  before,  synods  cannot  be  assem- 
bled in  any  country  of  the  Roman  obedience  without  the  royal 
license  ;  and  the  promise  which  our  clergy  made  at  the  same 
time,i  to  enact  no  new  canons  in  future  without  the  king's  per- 
mission, was  only  consistent  with  the  harmonious  action  of  the 
temporal  and  spiritual  powers  ;  while  it  is  also  certain,  that  all 
temporal  princes  in  the  Roman  communion  exercise  the  power 
of  rejecting  whatever  regulations  of  discipline  (even  those  made 
in  general  councils,)"^  appear  to  them  unadvisable. 


»  Act  25  Henry  VIII.  c.  1.        <>  Burnet,  Hist.  Ref.  i.  330. 

p  Burnet,  i.  270,  271. 

q  Burnet,  ibid.  It  appears  that  the  clergy  only  intended  to  refrain  from 
enacting  canons  during  the  lifetime  of  king  Henry,  as  a  matter  of  special 
compliment,  and  that  they  made  a  salvo  for  the  immunities  and  privileges 
of  the  church  of  England,  and  all  existing  provincial  constitutions  accord- 
ant with  the  law  of  God  and  the  holy  church. — Burnet,  vol.  iii.  p.  133,  134. 
Records,  n.  20. 

r  The  kings  of  France  have  always  rejected  the  discipline  of  the  synod 
of  Trent.    It  has  been  only  imperfectly  received  in  most  countries  of  the 


432  THE    BRITISH    REFORMATION.  [PART  II. 

.  VI ,  The  first  act  of  the  king  was  to  appoint  Cromwell,  in 
1535,  his  Vicar-General  and  Visitor  of  Monasteries.  The 
former  title  was  certainly  novel,  and  sounded  ill,  but  there  being 
no  evidence  that  it  was  intended  in  a  heterodox  sense,  the 
church  was  not  bound  to  resist  the  title  or  office.  Louis  XVI. 
king  of  France,  also  instituted  a  commission  for  examining  the 
monastic  orders,^  and  many  of  them  were  suppressed  by  this 
royal  commission.  The  emperors  and  kings  of  the  Carlovin- 
gian  race  had  established  permanent  visitors  of  all  orders  of  the 
clergy  under  the  title  of  "  Missi  Dominici ;'"  therefore  there 
was  nothing  intolerable  in  these  acts  of  king  Henry,  nor  did 
they  imply  (as  Bossuet  pretends)  the  assumption  of  papal 
power.^ 

VII.  The  archbishop  of  Canterbury  in  the  same  year  ob- 
tained the  king's  license  to  make  a  provincial  visitation,^  but 
the  reason  of  this  was,  because  there-was  a' reluctance  in  seve- 
ral of  the  bishops  to  allow  such  a  visitation,^  and  therefore  it 
was  necessary  to  support  the  canonical  power  of  the  metropoli- 
tan by  royal  authority,  not  that  any  real  spiritual  jurisdiction 
was  supposed  to  emanate  from  the  crown. ^ 

Roman  obedience.  See  Mosheim,  Cent.  xvi.  sect.  iii.  p.  1.  n.  xxiii.  See 
also  the  learned  treatise  of  Van  Espen  de  Promulgatione  Legum  Eccl.,  in 
which  he  maintains  the  right  of  Christian  princes  to  approve  of  ecclesias- 
tical laws. 

»  Mem.  pour  ser.  a  I'Hist.  Eccl.  xviii.  siecle,  tom.  ii.  p.  513,  &c. 

t  See  a  most  curious  accourrt  of  them  in  Thomassin.  Eccl.  Discipl.  t.  ii. 
1.  iii.  c.  92.  According  to  him  they  "  Exercised  an  episcopal  function," 
were  quasi-colleagues  of  the  bishops,  visited  churches  and  monasteries,  ex- 
amined the  lives  and  conduct  of  the  clergy,  the  zeal  of  the  bishops,  their 
obedience  to  the  canons  made  by  unperial  authority  with  the  advice  of  the 
clergy,  &c.  They  were  commonly  counts  and  other  laymen.  Such  ap- 
pointments could  only  be  justified  under  extraordinary  circumstances,  and 
by  the  tacit  sanction  of  the  church. 

"  Bossuet,  Variations,  1.  vii.  n.  17.  76. 

"  Burnet,  vol.  i.  p.  334. 

"  Le  Bas,  Life  of  Cranmer,  vol.  i.  chap.  v. 

»  Bossuetj  Variations,  1.  vii.  n.  18. 


CHAP,  111.]    ROYAL   INJUNCTIONS — ARTICLES  OF  1537.  .    433 

VIII.  In  1536  the  king  issued  injunctions  or  edicts  in  several 
matters  of  discipline  to  be  executed  in  all  the  churches,  and 
the  clergy,  it  is  said,  "  were  much  troubled  at  this  precedent 
of  the  king's  giving  such  injunctions  to  them,  without  the 
consent  of  the  convocation ;  from  which  they  concluded  they 
were  now  to  be  slaves  to  the  lord  vicegerent."^  Yet  in  fact 
such  injunctions,  though  apparently  novel,  were  not  really  un- 
precedented. The  laws  of  the  Roman  emperors,  Theodosius, 
Honorius,  Justinian,  &;c.,  the  capitulars  of  Charlemagne,  Ca- 
rolus  Calvus,  and  of  other  emperors  and  kings  of  France,  the 
ecclesiastical  laws  of  the  Saxon  and  Norman  kings  of  Eng- 
land,^ were  all  exactly  of  the  same  nature  as  these  injunctions  ; 
that  is,  they  were  confirmatory  of  regulations  already  made  by 
the  church.  Of  the  injunctions,  some  are  for  the  enforcement 
of  things  recently  decreed  by  the  convocations  of  the  clergy  ; 
others  are  confirmatory  of  the  canons  then  in  force.  All  were 
of  such  a  nature  that  the  church  was  not  bound  to  oppose  them. 
The  same  observations  apply  to  the  injunctions  of  Edward  VI. 
in  1547,  and  to  those  of  Elizabeth. 

IX.  Bossuet  affirms  that  the  articles  of  Doctrine  of  1537 
were  decided  and  ordained  only  by  the  king,  though  he  had 
previously  heard  the  bishops,  as  judges  hear  experienced  per- 
sons ;^  thereby  insinuating  that  the  king  claimed,  or  was 
allowed,  to  have  the  power  of  dictating  the  religion  of  his  sub- 
jects. But  Henry  VIII.  himself,  in  the  preface  to  these  articles, 
declares  that  he  had  assembled  the  bishops  and  clergy  in  con- 
vocatio?i  "  for  the  full  debatement  and  quiet  determination  "  of 
these  questions  of  faith  and  discipline  ;  and  that  he  approves 
their  "  determination,  debatement,  and  agreement,"  which  ac- 


y  Burnet,  vol.  i.  p.  412. 

z  See  Bramhall's  Works,  p.  88  ;  105,  106.  110  ;  73.  &c.  The  ecclesi- 
astical laws  of  the  emperor  Joseph  IL,  of  Leopold,  grand  duke  of  Tuscany, 
of  the  duke  of  Parma,  and  the  "  Organic  Articles  "  enacted  by  Napoleon, 
are  all  proofs  that  the  same  or  greater  power  than  that  exercised  by  Henry 
VIII.,  is  acknowledged  to  belong  to  princes  of  the  Roman  obedience. 

*  Bossuet,  Var.  1.  vii.  n.  29. 
VOL.  I. — 55 


434  THE  BRITISH  REFORMATION.  ,  [PART  II. 

cordingly  he  commands  all  his  subjects  to  receive.^  This  is 
only  a  royal  confirmation  of  the  church's  decisions,  such  as  is 
necessary  even  in  every  part  of  the  Roman  Obedience. 

X.  But  the  fact  most  relied  on  to  demonstrate  the  exagge- 
rated claims  of  the  temporal  pov^er,  and  the  improper  subser- 
viency of  the  church  of  England,  is  the  issuing  of  commissions 
to  the  bishops. 

In  1539,  on  the  nomination  of  Boner  to  the  see  of  London, 
he  applied  for  and  obtained  a  royal  commission,  dated  Nov. 
12th,  probably   in  order  to  ingratiate  himself  with  the  king. 
There  is  no  evidence  that  the  other  bishops  during  the  reign 
of  Henry  YIII.  required  or  obtained  such  commissions  ;  but 
I  contend  that  the  commission  itself  is  capable  of  an  orthodox 
sense,  and  that  it  must  be  understood  in  that  sense.     It  declares 
that  '.'  all  jurisdiction,  ecclesiastical  and  secular,  emanates  from 
the  king,  that  it  was  fitting  that  those  who  had  hitherto  exer- 
cised it  only  precariously,    should   acknowledge  that  it  was 
conferred  by  the  king's  liberality,  and  should  be  ready  to  relin- 
quish it  when  he  judges  right"  ....  that  therefore,  "  since  the 
king's  vicegerent  was  occupied  by  arduous  business,"  the  king 
declared  the  bishop  to  be  in  his  stead,  and  licensed  him  to  per- 
form all  which  concerned  the  episcopal  authority  and  jurisdic- 
tion, "  besides  and  beyond  those  things  which  are  discerned 
from  the  holy  Scriptures  to  be  committed  to  thee  by  God  ;"  and 
declares  that  this  license  is  only  to  last  during  the  king's  plea- 
sure."*^    Now,  however  wide  and  high  sounding  the  terms  of 
this  commission  may  appear,  I  contend  that  it  does  not  neces- 
sarily convey  a  heterodox  meaning  ;  for  it  may  be  understood 
to  confer  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction  not  in  foro  conscientia  and 
as  operating  internally,  but  as  externally  and  legally  coercive. 


b  Formularies  of  Faith,  Oxford,  p.  4. 

<=  Burnet,  Hist.  Ref.  vol.  i.  p.  484,  485.  Records,  n.  14.  Bossuet, 
Variations,  1.  vii.  n.  45.  I  am  ashamed  to  put  in  such  close  connexion  with 
him  Micaiah  Towgood  on  Dissent,  p.  22,  23 ;  but  both  unite  in  assailing 
us  on  this  point. 


CHAP.  III.]         COMMISSIONS  TAKEN  OUT  BY  BISHOPS.  435 

Thus,  in  otlicr  words,  it  amounts  to  nothing  more  than  a  grant 
of  temporal  authority  confirmatory  of  that  spiritual  authority 
given  to  bishops  by  the  word  of  God.     Ecclesiastical  jurisdic- 
tion might  in  this  sense  be  most  truly  said  to  emanate  from  the 
king,  to  be  conferred  by  his  bounty,  and  liable  to  be  withdrawn 
when  he  pleased ;  and  the  king  might  authorize  his  bishops  to 
ordain,   institute,    nominate    to   benefices,    prove   wills,    grant 
administration,  judge  causes,  and  exercise  all  other  parts  of 
the  episcopal  jurisdiction,  always  understanding  that  this  license 
conferred  no  proper  spiritual  power,  but  one  which  was  in  its 
nature  entirely  temporal.     Thus  may  these  expressions  be  un- 
derstood, according  to  the  doctrine  of  our  theologians  Bramhall,*^ 
Leslie,"  Gibson/  &c.    But  it  is  evident,  in  fact,  that  it  must  have 
been  so  understood.     The  "  Institution  of  a  Christian  Man," 
approved  by  the  king  himself  and  by  twenty-one  archbishops 
and  bishops,  in  1537,  only  two  years  before  this  commission 
was  issued  to  Boner,  maintained  that  "  God^s  law  "  committed 
to  bishops  or  priests  the  powers  of  jurisdiction,  in  excommu- 
nicating and  absolving  offenders,  (but  "  not  with  violence   or 
corporeal  restraint,")  in  ordaining  and  nominating  ministers,  and 
in  making  canons  concerning  discipline,  rites,  &c.,s  and  limits 
the  jurisdiction  of  princes,  conferred  by  them  on  the  church,  to 
corporal  and  legal  powers,  and  to  certain  privileges  in  matters 
of  a  temporal  and  civil  nature,^  and  acknowledges  that  it  is 
lawful  for  princes  to  "  revoke  and  call  again  into  their  own 
hands,  or  otherwise  to  restrain  all  the  power  and  jurisdiction 
which  was  given  and  assigned  unto  priests  and  bishops  by  the 
license,  consent,  sufferance,  and  authority  of  the   said  kings 
and  princes,  and  not  by  the  authority  of  God  and  his  gospel."' 
This  document,  exhibiting  the  doctrine  publicly  maintained  by 

d  Bramhall,  Works,  p.  77.  ^  Leslie,  Regale  and  Pontificate,  s.  9. 

r  Gibson,  Codex,  vol.  i.  p.  xvii.  xviii.  See  also  Mason,  Burnet,  Brett, 
and  others  cited  by  Courayer  in  his  Defence  of  English  Ordinations, 
chapter  xi. 

g  Formularies  of  Faith,  p.  107 — 110. 

"  Ibid.  p.  113.  i  Ibid.  p.  114. 


436  THE  BRITISH  REFORMATION.  v  [PART  II. 

the  church  and  by  Henry  VIII.  at  that  moment,  suffices  to 
determine  the  sense  in  which  the  commission  was  issued  to  be 
orthodox,  and  proves  that  the  power  conferred  by,  and  supposed 
to  emanate  from  the  king,  was  in  its  nature  only  temporal. 

In  the  first  year  of  Edward  VI ,  the  bishops  were  required 
to  take  out  similar  commissions,  which  we  have  no  reason  to 
suppose  were  issued  or  received  in  a  different  sense.  It  is  not 
to  be  denied  however  that  they  are  capable  of  a  heterodox 
sense,  and  as  it  was  immediately  affixed  by  the  partizans  of 
Rome,  it  was  right,  in  order  to  avoid  scandal,  that  the  practice 
should  be  discontinued ;  accordingly  it  was  discontinued,  for 
none  of  the  new  bishops  were  required  to  lake  out  similar 
commissions.^ 

XL  On  the  same  principle  we  explain  the  act  of  parliament 
in  1547,  declaring  that  as  all  jurisdiction,  spiritual  and  temporal, 
emanates  from  the  king,  all  proceedings  in  the  episcopal  courts 
shall  be  in  the  king's  name,  and  sealed  with  his  arms.^  The 
jurisdiction  here  spoken  of  was  not  the  spiritual  jurisdiction  as 
given  by  the  law  of  God  to  his  ministers,  and  operating  on  the 
conscience,  but  an  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction  legally  coercive. 
It  related  entirely  to  processes  in  the  recognized  ecclesiastical 
courts  of  law  ;  and  by  the  very  same  act,  the  bishops  might 
use  their  own  names  and  seals  in  admitting  their  chancellors, 
commissioners,  &;c.  and  in  commissions  of  suffragan  bishops, 
faculties,  dispensations,  collations,  presentations,  gifts,  institu- 
tions, inductions,  letters  of  orders,  or  dimissories.™  So  that 
there  was  no  intention  of  interfering  with  the  real  spiritual  ju- 
risdiction of  bishops.     This  act  was  subsequently  repealed."^ 

XII.  The  royal  visitations  of  England  in  1536,  1547,  and  in 
the  reign  of  Elizabeth,  were  not  unprecedented  in  the  church. 
Charlemagne  and  his  successors  had  appointed  visitors  of  the 
German  and  French  churches,  when  many  abuses  were  to  be 
reformed."     The  object  was  then,  as  it  was  in  England,  to  en- 

k  Burnet,  Hist.  Ref.  vol.  ii.  p.  10.  '  Act  1  Edw.  VI.  c.  2. 

«"  Ibid.  "  Gibson,  Codex,  p.  967. 

o  See  above,  note  t,  p.  432. 


CHAP.  III.]  ,  •     .        ROYAL    VISITATIONS.  ''  437 

force  regulations  approved  by  the  church  and  confirmatory  of 
the  canons  ;  and  though  it  is  true  that  such  visitations  might 
form  precedents  for  future  invasions  of  ecclesiastical  liberties, 
still  their  objects  were  laudable,  and  it  does  not  appear  that  the 
church  was  strictly  bound  to  offer  any  opposition  to  them. 

XIII.  The  council  of  Edward  VI.  in  1547  issued  a  procla- 
mation, equivalent  then  in  law  to  an  act  of  parliament,  which, 
it  is  said,  suspended  the  jurisdiction  of  bishops  and  archbishops 
during  the  royal  visitation,  and  required  the  clergy  to  preach 
only  in  their  own  churches,  unless  they  obtained  special  license 
from  the  king.  The  mere  recital  of  such  acts,  according  to 
Bossuet,  shows  their  iniquity. p  I  will  not  maintain  that  this 
proceeding  was  altogether  free  from  fault,  but  the  proclamation 
did  not  pretend  to  suspend  the  jurisdiction  of  the  bishops  ;  it 
only  required  them  not  to  exercise  it  "to  the  prejudice  of  the 
royal  visitation,"  uiider  pain  of  contempt.  And  it  did  not  pre- 
tend to  silence  the  clergy,  but  directed  the  bishops  to  inhibit 
them  ;^  thus  recognizing  the  episcopal  authority.  As  to  the 
royal  pretence  to  license  preachers,  it  was  an  irregularity  which 
the  church  was  not  called  to  pronounce  upon.' 

XIV.  The  royal  injunctions  issued  at  this  time,  enjoined  the 
clergy  to  pray  publicly  for  the  king  as  supreme  head  of  the 


p  Bossuet,-  Variations,  1.  vii.  n.  77. , 

1  Burnet,  vol.  ii.  b.  i.  Rec.  7. 

r  The  emperor  Joseph  II.  took  on  him  to  silence  preachers. — Mem. 
Eccl.  xviii.  siecle,  torn.  iii.  p.  22.  Charles  V.  in  1553  also  silenced  the 
preachers  of  both  parties,  as  we  learn  from  Melancthon,  epist.  lib.  iv.  99. 
The  pretence  to  license  preachers  was  not  more  irregular  than  this  :  and 
the  various  restraints  put  on  preaching  during  the  time  of  violent  controver- 
sies by  king  Edward  VI.,  which  Bossuet  alludes  to,  (Var.  vii.  79.)  were 
merely  in  accordance  with  the  right  of  Christian  kings  to  preserve  the  peace 
of  their  dominions.  Rechberger,  a  Roman  canonist,  asserts  their  right  to  en- 
join silence  in  controversies  of  faith,  and  this  right  was  exercised  by  the 
emperor  Joseph  II.  in  his  decrees  of  1781  and  1782,  which  prohibited  all 
discussion  on  the  bull  Unigenitus,  and  which  are  still  in  force.  Enchir. 
Jur.  Eccl.  Austriac. 


438  THE   BRITISH    REFORMATION.     '  [PART  II. 

church  of  England,  and  the  violation  of  this  rule  was  to  be  pun- 
ished by  suspension,  deprivation,  and  excommunication.  "  Be- 
hold," says  Bossuet,  "  in  the  ecclesiastical  penalties,  all  the 
essence  of  the  pastoral  authority  usurped  by  the  king,  and  the 
inmost  deposit  of  the  sanctuary  torn  from  the  sacerdotal  order ."^ 
The  answer  is  simply,  tlxat  these  penalties  were  not  to  be  in- 
flicted by  the  king  but  by  the  bishops.  They  were  enjoined  to 
see  this  regulation  executed,  i.  e.  to  suspend,  depose,  or  excom- 
municate the  clergy  who  disobeyed  it.'  Their  authority  was 
called  in  to  the  aid  of  the  royal  power,  and  it  is  certain  that 
Christian  kings  have  often  required  their  bishops  to  support 
their  regulations  in  a  similar  manner. 

XV.  The  lower  house  of  convocation  in  1547  addressed  the 
bishops,  desiring,  among  other  things,  that,  according  to  the 
ancient  custom,  the  inferior  clergy  might  be  again  admitted  to 
sit  in  the  house  of  commons,  "  or  else,  that  all  such  statutes 
and  ordinances  as  shall  be  made  concerning  all  matters  of  reli- 
gion and  causes  ecclesiastical,-  may  not  pass  without  the  sight 
and  assent  of  the  said  clergy.""  Bossuet  misrepresents  this  as 
follows  :  "  They  asked  as  a  favour  of  parhament,  that  the 
affairs  of  religion  should  not  be  regulated  without  at  least  taking 
their  advice  and  listening  to  their  reasons.  What  misery  !  to 
reduce  themselves  to  be  listened  to  as  mere  advisers,  they  who 
ought  to  have  been  heard  as  judges,  and  of  whom  Jesus  Christ 
said  :  '  He  that  heareth  you  heareth  me.'  But  that,  says  our 
historian,  did  not  succeed."^ 

Now  the  request  was  not  to  parliament  but  to  the  bishops  ; 
it  was  not  made  by  the  bishops  but  by  the  presbyters  of  the 
church;  and  finally  it  did  not  fail  of  success;  for  it  appears 
that  the  consent  of  convocation  or  of  the  clergy  was  sought  and 
obtained  in  all  the  chief  measures  affecting  the  church  which 
followed,  (as  we  shall  presently  see  :)  and  in  fine  the  historian 


B  Bossuet,  Var.  1.  vii.  n.  77.  t  Burnet,  vol.  ii.  p.  53. 

"  Burnet,  Hist.  Ref.  vol.  ii.  p.  87.  Rec.  n.  16. 
V  Bossuet,  Var.  1.  vii.  n.  78. 


CHAP.  III.]  VARIOUS    MISREPRESENTATIONS.  439 

alluded  to  did  not  mean  that  this  request  failed  of  success,  but 
that  the  proposed  alternative  of  sitting  in  parliament  did  so. 

XVI.  This  is  succeeded  by  another  misrepresentation. 
"  They  did  not  blush  to  require  from  bishops  an  express  decla- 
ration *  to  make  profession  of  the  doctrine  as  it  should  be  from 
time  to  time  established  and  explained  by  the  king  and  by  the 
clergy.'"^  This  promise,  which  one  would  suppose  was  re- 
quired from  several  bishops,  was  only  sought  by  the  council 
from  one  (Gardiner,)  who  was  extremely  refractory  and  turbu- 
lent ;  and  he  answered  that  he  would  conform  himself  as  the 
other  bishops  did.''  It  will  be  remembered  that  the  conduct 
here  attributed  to  the  civil  power  was  actually  realized  after- 
wards in  the  Roman  church  by  the  emperor  Joseph  II.,  who 
issued  a  decree  "  which  compelled  all  the  bishops  of  his  here- 
ditary states  to  promise  obedience  to  all  the  orders  which  had 
already  emanated  from  the  emperor,  or  which  he  might  publish 
hereafter.''^ 

XVII.  It  is  alleged,  that  in  the  time  of  Edward  VI.  all  the 
most  important  changes  in  the  form  of  ordinations,  the  pubhc 
service,  the  body  of  the  canons,  &c.,  were  regulated  by  the  >' 
king  or  parliament,  to  the  annihilation  of  the  church's  power.'' 
This  is  far  from  the  truth.  The  parliament  only  added  the 
force  of  the  temporal  law  to  the  determinations  of  convocations 
or  bishops,  or  at  least  its  regulations  were  confirmed  by  eccle- 
siastical authority. 

Thus,  in  1547,  an  act  passed  for  communion  in  both  kinds, 
and  against  private  masses,  on  the  ground  of  Scripture  and  pri- 
mitive practice  ;  but  the  convocation  also  agreed  to  it.^  In 
1548,  an  act  legalized  the  marriage  of  priests  ;  but  the  clergy 
had  decided  this  point  of  discipline  in  their  convocation  the 


"  Bossuet,  ibid.  '^  Burnet,  ii.  103. 

y  Memoires  sur  Pie  VI.  et  son  Pontif.  t.  i.  p.  236. 
»  Bossuet,  Var.  1.  vii.  n.  76. 
*  Burnet   ii.  92  ;  Le  Bas,  Life  of  Cranmcr,  i.  291. 


440  THE    BRITISH    REFOUMATION.  s  [PART  II. 

preceding  year,  and  they  now  confirmed  it  again.^  In  1549, 
the  Ritual  having  been  prepared  by  bishops  and  theologians  at 
Windsor,  was  authorized  by  act  of  parliament ;  but  it  was  also 
approved  by  convocation  in  November,  1548.*^  When  a  new 
office  for  ordinations  was  provided  for  by  parliament,  it  was  to 
be  left  to  the  composition  of  six  bishops,  and  six  theologians."^ 
The  alterations  in  the  Ritual  confirmed  by  parliament,  a.d.  1552, 
had  been  made  by  bishops  in  the  preceding  year,^  Thus  there 
was  always  a  respect  paid  to  the  priesthood ;  and  if  in  any 
point  the  temporal  government  neglected  some  of  the  usual 
forms,  the  church  always  retained  the  power  of  rejecting  any 
regulation  inconsistent  with  the  catholic  faith  or  discipline. 

XVIIT.  It  only  remains  to  notice  the  deprivations  of  bishops 
by  the  civil  power,  and  it  may  be  at  once  conceded  that  the 
principle  of  such  deprivations  cannot  be  approved  of;  but 
irregularities  of  this  kind  have  been  often  practised  in  the 
church.  Justinian,  and  many  others  of  the  Eastern  emperors, 
expelled  bishops  from  their  sees,^  and  in  more  modern  times 
this  conduct  has  been  imitated  in  churches  of  the  Roman 
obedience.  Cardinal  de  Chatillon  was  expelled  from  his  see 
by  the  civil  power  in  France,^  and  the  emperors  Joseph  II.  and 
Napoleon  suppressed  sees  in  their  respective  dominions.^  The 
church  is  sometimes  obliged  to  submit  to  such  irregularities  in 
order  to  avoid  greater  evils,  and  even  to  ordain  bishops  in  the 


''  Ibid,  and  p.  172. 

<=  Ibid.  ii.  87.  113.     Le  Bas,  Cranmer,  i.  315,  316. 

^  Ibid.  p.  262. 

e  Wheatley  on  the  Common  Prayer. 

{  Bramhall,  Works,  p.  89.  De  Marca,^  Concord.  Saeer.  et  Imperii,  lib. 
iv.  c.  19.  See  also  the  treatise  of  Nicephorus,  edited  by  Dr-  Hody,  at  Ox- 
ford, 1691,  and  of  Methodius,  published  by  Cardinal  Maio,  in  the  third  vo- 
lume of  the  Ancient  Remains,  p.  247,  &c. 

s  Of  Beauvais.     See  Gallia  Christiana,  tom.  ix. 

''  Memoires  Eccl.  xviii.  siecle,  tom.  ii.  p.  22  ;  iii.  504. 


#« 


CHAP.  III.]  DEPRIVATIONS    OF    BISHOPS.  441 

place  of  those  who  have  been  deprived  ;*  and  thus  whatever 
may  have  been  the  justice  of  the  deprivations  of  two  ahen 
bishops,  or  of  two  others  accused  of  crimes  against  the  state, 
the  church  of  England  was  the  proper  judge  whether  these  de- 
privations were  tolerable,  and  she  had  the  power  of  sanctioning 

them. 

In  the  reign  of  Edward  VI.  several  deprivations  of  bishops 
took  place,  by  means  of  royal  commissions,  sometimes  consist- 
ing of  bishops,  sometimes  of  laymen,  which  were  apparently 
unjust  as  well  as  irregular.  Boner,  bishop  of  London,  Gardi- 
ner of  Winchester,  Heath  of  Worcester,  Day  of  Chichester, 
and  Tunstall  of  Durham,  were  expelled  successively  from  their 
sees  between  1549  and  1553.''  These  irregularities  I  do  not 
pretend  to  justify. 


See  Hody,  Case  of  sees  vacant  by  an  unjust  or  uncanonical  depriva- 


tion. 


■^  Burnet,  ii.  234.  280.  305.  375.  398.     Le  Bas,  Cranmer,  i.  329. 


VOL.  I. — 56 


CHAPTER  IV. 

ON  THE  PROCEEDINGS  IN  THE  REIGN  OF  MARY. 

The  deprivalions  of  bishops  alluded  to  above,  were  acts  de- 
serving of  censure  ;  and  we  therefore  cannot  view  as  an  irregu- 
larity or  an  injustice  the  restoration  of  bishops  Boner,  Gardiner, 
Heath,  Day,  and  Tunstall  to  their  sees  by  the  royal  commis- 
sions of  queen  Mary,^  though  the  result  was  the  expulsion  of 
bishops  Ridley,  Poynet,  and  Scory,  who  had  occupied  those 
sees  with  at  least  the  tacit  sanction  of  the  church.  But  other 
proceedings  followed,  which  were  too  obviously  dictated  by  a 
spirit  of  vengeance  and  hatred.  The  removal  of  bishop  Hoop- 
er by  the  queen,  from  his  see  of  Gloucester,  which  he  held  by 
regular  and  canonial  institution, ''was  altogether  unjustifiable. 
Voysey  was  irregularly  restored  to  the  see  of  Exeter,  by  an  or- 
der under  the  great  seal,  expelling  without  any  trial  or  formali- 
ty whatever,  bishop  Coverdale,  who  had  succeeded  on  his  vol- 
untary resignation. °  Pates,  who  had  been  nominated  to  the  see 
of  Worcester  many  years  before  by  the  pope,  contrary  to  the 
ecclesiastical  and  civil  regulations  made  in  the  reign  of  Henry 
VHL,  was  intruded  into  that  see  by  royal  authority.*^  But  in 
March,  1554,  an  unprecedented  violation  of  justice  and  of  ec- 
clesiastical liberties  took  place.  Royal  commissions  were  ap- 
pointed for  the  deprivation  of  no  less  than  seven  archbishops 
and  bishops  at  once,  some  for  the  fact  of  marriage  which  the 
church  of  England  had  sanctioned,  and  others  on  a  vague 
charge  of  offences,  and  the  clause  in  their  patents  given  by  Ed- 
ward VI.  (which  was  a  mere  nullity)  "quamdiu  se  bene  gesse- 

a  Burnet,  ii.  443.        "  lb.  li.  282.         ''  lb.  306.         ^  Burnet,  ii.  585. 


CHAP.  IV.]      SCHISMATICAL  PROCEEDINGS  UNDER  MARY.  443 

lint."®  Thus  nine  bishops  were  almost  at  once  driven  from 
their  sees  by  the  royal  power.  The  bishop  of  Bath  was  com- 
pelled to  resign  by  threats  and  intimidation. ^  This  is  exclusive 
of  Ridley,  Poynet,  and  Scory,  who  were  at  once  harshly  ex- 
pelled, and  of  archbishop  Cranmer,  afterwards  degraded  by  two 
papal  delegates,  who  besides  being  incompetent  to  judge  ac- 
cording to  the  canons,^  acted  by  a  power  which  was  irregular 
and  null,  the  papal  jurisdiction  having  been  suppressed  in  Eng- 
land and  never  regularly  revived  again. 

It  is  in  vain  that  Bossuet  would  cloak  the  scandal  of  such 
proceedings  by  pretending  that  "  until  the  ecclesiastical  order 
was  re-established  they  acted  against  the  Protestants  on  their 
own  maxims."^  If  these  maxims  were  wrong  in  themselves,  it 
could  not  be  justifiable  to  act  on  them.  They  could  only  have 
afforded  a  sufficient  reason  for  proceeding  in  a  lawful  manner 
against  any  who  could  have  been  proved  to  hold  them.  But 
there  is  no  evidence  that  any  maxims  were  received  either  by 
the  church  of  England  generally,  or  by  the  prelates  so  arbitra- 
rily and  irregularly  expelled,  which  could  justify  such  pro- 
ceedings. 

Acts  of  such  violence  were  without  parallel  in  history.  The 
expulsion  of  so  many  bishops  by  royal  commissions  ;  bishops 
not  intruded  into  their  sees  by  force,  or  on  any  doubtful  title ; 
and  this  too  by  a  queen  so  well  aware  of  the  incompetency  of 
the  temporal  power  for  such  acts,  as  to  refuse  the  title  of  Head 
of  the  church  of  England,  decline  accepting  the  oath  of  su- 
premacy, and  repeal  all  the  laws  establishing  the  ecclesiastical 
power  of  the  crown  ;  this  expulsion,  I  say,  is  too  obviously  at- 


«  Burnet,  ii.  494,  495.  f  Ibid.  p.  497. 

e  According  to  the  canons  of  the  synod  of  Antioch  (can.  4.  12.),  and  the 
African  code  (can.  12.),  a  bishop  could  only  be  deprived  regularly  by  a 
provincial  synod  or  by  twelve  bishops.  Besides  this  the  pope  had  no  right, 
even  by  the  canon  of  Sardica,  to  judge  bishops  in  the  first  instance.  He 
could  only  have  appointed  delegates  in  case  of  an  appeal. 

■>  Variat.  1.  vii.  n.  99. 


444  ."     ■       THE    BRITISH    REFORMATION.  ■  '  ;        [PART  II. 

tributable  to  a  spirit  of  hatred  towards  those  bishops  who  pro- 
moted the  reformation  of  the  church  of  England  and  its  indepen- 
dence of  the  Roman  pontiffs  ;  and  to  the  revengeful  feeling  of 
Gardiner  and  Boner,  who  being  elevated  to  the  head  of  affairs 
(Gardiner  was  immediately  made  lord  chancellor  of  England), 
had  the  power  as  well  as  the  inclination  to  persecute  their  op- 
ponents. The  same  motives  which  influenced  Gardiner  and 
Boner  operated  on  Tunstall,  Heath,  and  Day,  ranging  them  in 
opposition  to  the  cause  of  the  reformation  in  the  church  of  Eng- 
land. They  were  reinforced  by  a  few  weak  or  time-serving 
prelates,  and  by  fourteen  neiu  bishops  selected  for  their  im- 
plicit devotion  to  the  Roman  pontiff,  and  chiefly  intruders  into 
the  sees  of  the  expelled  bishops. 

In  contemplating  these  proceedings  in  the  reign  of  Mary,  we 
observe  all  the  principles  of  ecclesiastical  discipline  violated 
by  the  popish  party,  in  their  anxiety  to  place  these  churches 
under  that  jurisdiction  of  the  Roman  see  which  they  ima- 
gined to  be  essential  to  catholic  unity.  This  imagined  ne- 
cessity caused  them  to  violate  the  rules  of  the  church,  and  to 
subvert  our  liberties,  contrary  to  the  spirit  and  express  injunc- 
tions of  the  canons.  The  usurped  and  novel  jurisdiction  of  the 
Roman  see  had  been  removed  twenty  years  before,  in  accord- 
ance with  the  canon  of  the  oecumenical  synod  of  Ephesus, 
which  decreed  that  the  liberties  of  churches  should  be  pre- 
served, and  that  every  province  should  retain  those  rights 
which  it  had  possessed  from  the  beginning."  The  ancient  lib- 
erty of  the  church  of  England  had,  after  due  inquiry,  been  re- 
vived, and  had  continued  in  force  for  such  a  time  ;  and  it  was 
a  sacrifice  of  the  interests  of  religion,  of  the  freedom,  and  the 
proper  disciphne  of  the  church  of  England,  and  of  the  princi- 


i  Canon  VIII.  See  Barnes,  Catholico-Romanus  pacific,  sect,  iii.  where 
the  liberties  of  the  British  church  are  defended.  See  also  Bingham,  Orig. 
Eccl.  book  ix.  c.  1  ;  Bramhall,  Works,  p.  77—85  ;  Stillingfleet,  Originea 
Britannicae ;  Basire,  Diatriba  de  Antiq.  Eccl.  Brit.  Libert. 


CHAP.  IV.]      SCHISMATICAL  PROCEEDINGS  UNDER  MARY.  445 

pies  of  the  sacred  canons,  to  introduce  again  the  absolute  au- 
thority of  the  Roman  pontiff. 

It  may  be  most  reasonably  denied  that  the  church  of  England 
could  even  by  a  synodical  judgment  have  revived  this  power, 
contrary  to  the  decree  of  an  oecumenical  synod  in  a  case   of 
general  discipline,  where  a  great  principle  of  universal  applica- 
tion was  laid  down  ;  but  there  was  no  synodical  examination  or 
judgment  on  the  question  ;  the  papal  party  in  the  church,  having 
expelled  their  opponents  from  their  sees,  submitted  themselves 
blindly  to  the  authority  of  the  Roman  pontiff,  superstitiously 
imploring  his  forgiveness  for  the  sin  of  which  they  had  been 
guilty  in  removing  his  usurped  jurisdiction.''     This  mere  suh- 
mission,  without  any  formal  examination  and  enactment,  could 
not  erect  the  papal  authority  in  England  ;  and  consequently  all 
the  acts  subsequently  performed  by  that  authority  in  England 
•were  irregularities,  usurpations,  nullities.     It  was  only  fit  that 
■what  had  begun  without  order,  reason,   and  ecclesiastical  au- 
thority, should  be  sustained  by  violence.     Accordingly  upwards 
of  three  thousand  clergy  were  expelled  from  their  churches,^  and 
those  who  w^ere  most  resolute  in  refusing  to  wear  the  papal 
yoke,  were  obliged  to  take  refuge  in  exile,  or  were  delivered  to 

the  flames.  ' 

Thus  was  the  church  of  England  miserably  distracted  and 
persecuted  under  the  dominion  of  the  papal  faction,  as  the  Ori- 
ental churches  in  the  time  of  Constantius  were  by  usurping  Ari- 
an  bishops.  We  cannot  recognize  in  the  changes  which  they 
effected,  any  regular  or  valid  ecclesiastical  authority.  The  rule 
which  they  followed,  was  not  the  judgment  of.  the  catholic  and 
primitive  church,  but  the  decrees  of  the  modern  bishops  of 
Rome.  They  were  men  who  had  usurped  irregularly  the  epis- 
copal sees  of  others  ;  who  acted  in  disobedience  to  the  laws  and 
customs  of  the  church  of  England,  by  jurisdiction  delegated 
from  the  Roman  pontiff ;  or  who  had  been  intruded  into  English 


^  Burnet,  ii.  528  ;  iii._412.  '  Burnet,  ibid. 


446  '  THE    BRITISH   REFORMATION.  [pART  II. 

sees  by  his  nominations,  which  conferred  no  title  whatever. 
The  church  of  England,  oppressed  by  these  schismatics,  be- 
held her  liberties  sacrificed,  her  institutions  altered  for  the  worse 
in  many  respects,  and  the  abuses  which  she  had  removed  forced 
upon  her  again. 


r  I 


CHAPTER  V. 

ON  THE  PROCEEDINGS  IN  THE  REIGN  OF  ELIZABETH. 

The  scene  changed  on  the  accession  of  Elizabeth,  who  was 
made  the  instrument  of  putting  in  force  all  the  laws  and  regula- 
tions of  the  church  of  England,  which  had  been  disobeyed  and 
violated  by  the  papal  faction  in  the  last  reign.  She  found  the 
episcopal  sees  filled  chiefly  by  intruders  of  that  party,  but 
several  were  vacant. 

It  is  contended  by  Romanists  and  other  opponents  of  the 
church,  that  the  reformations  in  the  beginning  of  Elizabeth's 
reign  were  contradictory  to  the  principles  of  ecclesiastical  au- 
thority. I  fully  admit  that  they  are  indefensible  on  papal  prin- 
ciples, because  they  had  the  radical  fault  of  being  in  disobedi- 
ence to  the  bishop  of  Rome;  but  I  contend  that  they  were 
in  no  respect  contradictory  to  the  principles  of  the  catholic 
church. 

There  are  three  points  in  which  these  reformations  are  chiefly 
assailed.  First,  the  enacting  of  ecclesiastical  regulations  in  par- 
liament, without  the  consent  of  the  bishops,  or  of  the  convoca- 
tion of  the  clergy  ;  secondly,  the  expulsion  of  those  bishops 
from  their  sees;  and,  thirdly,  the  appointment  of  successors 
in  their  place.  Hence  it  is  argued,  that  all  the  proceedings 
concerning  religion  at  that  time,  were  made  by  an  incompe- 
tent and  schismatical  authority,  that  the  church  of  England 
was  involved  in  schism,''  &c.  I  shall  notice  these  objections 
successively. 

I.  It  is  admitted  that  the  parliament  passed  acts  for  abolish- 
ing the  papal  jurisdiction,  and  establishing  the  regal  supremacy, 


*  Trevern,  Micaiah  Towgood  on  Dissent,  10.  108.  126. 


448  THE  BRITISH  REFORMATION.  [PART  II. 

with  an  oath  to  that  effect ;  and  also  for  establishing  the  English 
ritual.'^     But  these  acts  were  merely  confirmatory  of  the  laws 
and  institutions  made  by  the  church  of  England   during  the 
reigns  of  Henry  VIII.  and  Edward  VI.,  which  had  been  indeed 
disobeyed  by  the  papal  party  in  the  reign  of  Mary,  and  annulled 
by  the  civil  power,  but  which  had  never  been  annulled  by  any 
legitimate  authority  of  the  church.     These  acts  were  simply 
revivals  of  laws  which  had  been  formerly  made  v^^ith  the  con- 
currence of  the  church  of  England  ;  and  they  only  gave  the 
temporal  sanction  to  institutions  which  had  always  remained  in 
their  full  spiritual  force  and  obligation.     Further,  I  deny  that 
the  bishops  then  occupying  sees  in  England  were  legitimate 
bishops,  as  will  be  presently  shown.     Therefore  it  was  need- 
less to  solicit  their  sanction  of  these  acts,  or  to  regard  their 
opposition.     The  lower  house  of  convocation,  too,  consisted 
generally  of  men  who  were  of  the  same  faction,  and  who  had 
been  active  in  all  the  irregular  proceedings  of  the  last  reign, 
besides  being  intruded  into  the   benefices   of  others  ;  so  that 
their  petition  to  the  bishops,  in  favour  of  the  Roman  supremacy, 
&c.  deserved  no  attention. 

II.  Those  bishops  who  were  expelled  from  the  English  sees, 
by  royal  commissions,  in  consequence  of  their  refusal  to  ac- 
knowledge the  regal  supremacy,  and  to  relinquish  the  papal 
jurisdiction,  had  obtained  those  sees  in  an  irregular  and  schis- 
matical  manner,  by  means  of  an  authority  annulled  and  pro- 
hibited by  the  church  of  England,  according  to  the  canons. 
0.f  ..these  bishops  of  the  popish  party,  the  following  had  been 
appointed  to  their  sees  by  papal  provisions  or  bulls,  which  were 
unlawful  and  null  in  the  church  of  England  :  Watson  of  Lin- 
coln, Oglethorpe  of  Carlisle,  Pool  of  Peterborough,  Pates  of 
Worcester,  Goldwell  of  St.  Asaph."  The  following  had  not 
only  taken  their  sees  merely  by  papal  authority,  but  had  in- 
truded into  them  while  those  sees  were  not  vacant,  that  is 
during  the  lifetime  of  their  legitimate  pastors  :  Heath  of  York, 

^_  Burnet,  ii.  693.  ^  Burnet,  ill.  455.    Rymer  Fcedera,  torn.  xv. 


CHAP,  v.]     BISHOPS  LAWFULLY  ELECTED  AND  ORDAINED.  449 

White  of  Winchester,  Turberville  of  Exeter,  Scott  of  Chester.** 
Bourne  of  Bath  had  intruded  into  the  place  of  Bishop  Barlow, 
who  had  been  forced  by  intimidation  to  resign.  Thus  ten 
bishops  of  those  expelled  by  Ehzabeth,  had  been  schismatically 
and  invalidly  appointed  to  the  sees  they  occupied  ;  and,  of  the 
remaining  four,  Boner  and  Thirlby  had  been  guilty  of  serious 
offences,  as  well  in  attempting  to  introduce  the  papal  jurisdic- 
tion, and  in  violating  the  laws  and  institutions  of  the  church  of 
England,  as  in  presiding  in  the  character  of  papal  delegates  at 
the  unjust  degradation  and  murder  of  their  own  metropolitan 
and  primate ;  and  in  many  other  acts  of  cruelty.  If  one  or 
two  were  removed  from  their  sees  apparently  without  sufhcient 
canonical  reason,  so  comparatively  small  an  irregularity  cannot 
affect  the  character  of  the  proceedings  in  general,  and  Tunstall 
died  before  his  see  was  filled  up  by  a  new  consecration. 

III.  We  are  to  consider  the  appointments  of  the  new  bishops 
at  this  time.  The  metropolitan  chair  of  Canterbury,  and  twelve 
other  bishoprics  were  vacant  by  death,  before  any  of  them  were 
filled  by  fresh  ordinations  ;"  eleven  other  sees  were  vacant  by 
the  legitimate  expulsion  of  those  who  had  usurped  them.^ 
Therefore  the  new  appointments  of  bishops  took  place  in  the 
ordinary  and  regular  manner. 

According  to  the  canons  all  bishops  should  be  consecrated 
by  their  metropolitan,  and  the  synod  of  com-provincial  bishops, 
or  at  least  by  three  of  them  ;^  but  at  this  time,  in  consequence 
of  the  usurpations  and  intrusions  of  the  papal  faction,  there 
was  not  a  sufficient  number  of  bishops  in  England  actually  and 
legitimately  in  possession  of  sees,  to  perform  the  ordination. 


d  Ibid. 

«  Canterbury,    Durham,    Salisbury,    Norwich,    Hereford.    Chichester, 
Rochester,  Oxford,  Gloucester,  Bristol,  Bangor,  St.  David's,  Man. 

f  York,  Bath,  Lichfield,  Winchester,  Lincoln,  Carlisle,  Exeter,  Peter- 
borough, Chester,  Worcester,  St.  Asaph. 

E  Nicene  Synod,  can.  4 ;  Antioch.  can.  19.  23 ;  African  code,  can.  13. 
49  ;  ii.  Orleans,  can.  7 ;  iv.  Toledo,'c.  18 ;  Bingham's  Antiq.  b.  ii  .c.  16, 
s.  15 ;  De  Marca.  Concord.  Sacerd.  et  Imp.  lib.  iv.  c.  4. 
VOL.  I. — bl 


450  '       THE   BRITISH  REFORMATION.  [PART  II. 

It  was  a  time  of  great  difficulty  (the  church  of  England  having 
been  deprived  of  so  many  of  her  legitimate  bishops),  and  there- 
fore the  consecration  of  Archbishop  Parker  was  performed  by 
four  of  the  bishops  wrho  had  been  expelled  and  driven  into  exile 
by  the  papal  faction  in  the  last  reign,  and  who  had  not  yet 
been  restored  to  the  actual  possession  of  their  sees  and  bene- 
fices, but  two  of  whom,  at  least  (viz.  Barlow-  and  Coverdale), 
were  still  legitimately  bishops  of  the  province  of  Canterbury  ;^ 
while  Scory,  lately  bishop  of  Chichester,  ejected  by  the  tem- 
poral authority  of  Queen  Mary,  as  having  been  invested  with 
that  see  dubio  jure,  and  Hodgkins,  suffragan  bishop  of  Bedford, 
were  both  at  least  canonically  vacant,  and  competent  to  afford 
their  aid  in  the  necessity  of  the  church  of  England.^  Thus 
there  was  no  essential  informality  in  the  case,  because  two  of 
the  ordaining  bishops  were  still,  de  jure,  bishops  possessing 
jurisdiction  in  the  province  of  Canterbury,  and  this  entitled 
them,  under  the  circumstances,  to  call  in  the  assistance  of  the 
other  bishops  to  fill  up  the  canonical  number.  Pelagius,  bishop 
of  Rome,  was,  under  circumstances  of  less  difficulty,  ordained 
by  two  bishops  of  his  province.^ 

.  It  appears  then,  that  the  reformation  in  Ehzabeth's  reign  was 
not  effected  by  mere  temporal  authority,  in  opposition  to  the 
laws,  ordinances,  and  authority  of  the  spiritual  power.     The 

h  Barlow  having  been  forced  to  relinquish  his  see  of  Bath,  by  threats 
and  intimidation,  and  Coverdale  expelled  from  the  see  of  Exeter  by  the 
civil  power,  which  restored  Voysey,  who  had  freely  resigned  it. 

i  Bishops  who  are  without  actual  jurisdiction  over  any  see,  in  conse- 
quence of  any  cause  which  does  not  arise  from  their  own  misconduct, 
may  exercise  episcopal  functions  when  permitted  by  other  bishops.  This 
is  the  rule  of  the  synod  of  Antioch,  can.  18.  Apost.  can.  36.  See  also 
Balsamon  and  Zonaras  on  the  18th  canon  of  Antioch.  Thomassin,  Eccl. 
Discip.  p.  i.  1.  i.  c.  27,  28,  details  the  origin  and  ofEce  of  titular  bishops, 
who,  without  any  real  sec,  officiate  in  the  Roman  churches,  under  the  direc- 
tion of  others,  and  even  assist  in  consecrating  bishops.  See  also  Benedict 
XIV.  de  Synodo  Dicecesana.  1.  ii.  c  7 

k  Fleury,  Hist.  Eccl.  liv.  33,  n.  55. 


CHAP,  v.]  REGAL  SUPREMACY  EXAGGERATED.  451 

acts  of  parliament,  the  expulsion  of  some  bishops,  the  ordina- 
tion of  others,  were  all  justifiable  and  even  laudable  on  catholic 
principles.  The  Queen's  Injunctions  at  the  beginning  of  her 
reign,  were  like  the  edicts  of  Justinian,  Charlemagne,  and  their 
successors,  only  confirmatory  of  the  rights,  customs,  and  can- 
ons of  the  church,  previously  made  or  confirmed  by  spiritual 
authority. 

IV.  Bossuet  in  vain  endeavours  to  prove  that  notwithstanding 
the  denial  in  the  Article  that  "  we  give  to  our  prince  the  minis- 
tering of  God's  word  or  of  the  sacraments,"  which  seems  to 
reduce  the  royal  authority  to  a  mere  exterior  direction  and  exe- 
cution, the  contrary  appeared  in  practice.^  "  The  queen,"  he 
says,  "  gave  license  to  preach."  (If  so,  we  may  suppose  it 
was  with  the  advice  and  permission  of  her  prelates  ;  but  at  all 
events  we  are  not  responsible  for  every  act  of  sovereign  power.) 
She  "  made  bishops  with  the  same  authority  as  the  king  her 
father,  and  the  king  her  brother,  and  for  a  limited  time  if  she 
pleased."  (The  former  was  justifiable  by  the  universal  practice 
of  Christian  emperors  and  kings."'  The  latter  power  she  did 
not  exercise  in  fact,  and  it  was  obsolete  :  besides  the  church 
did  not  intend  to  admit  any  such  power.)  "  The  commission 
to  consecrate  them  emanated  from  the  royal  power."  (The 
kings  of  France  formerly  issued  similar  injunctions  to  their 
bishops.")  "  Excommunications  were  decreed  by  the  same 
authority."  (The  queen  herself  never  issued  excommunications, 
but  the  court  of  delegates,  or  the  high  commission  court,  which 
consisted  of  bishops.  Besides,  the  king  of  Sicily,  in  his  "  Tri- 
bunal of  the  Monarchy,"  absolves  and  excommunicates.)  "  The 
queen  by  her  edicts  regulated  not  only  external  worship,  but 
faith  and  doctrine,  or  caused  it  to  be  regulated  by  her  parlia- 
ment, whose  acts  derived  their  authority  from  her."  (These 
edicts  were  only  like  those  of  other  Christian  princes,  confir- 

1  Bossuet,  Variat.  1.  x.  n.  14, 15. 

m  Thomassin.  Eccl.  Discip.  p.  i.  1.  ii.  c.  19 ;  p.  ii.  1.  ii.  c.  34. 

°  Thomassin.  p.  ii.  1.  ii.  c.  34.  s.  8. 


452  THE  BRITISH  REFORMATION.  [PART  II. 

matory  of  the  faith  and  discipHne  approved  by  spiritual  au- 
thority.) In  fine,  the  parhament  pretended  to  prescribe  rules 
for  the  judgment  of  heresy,  namely,  that  nothing  should  be 
accounted  such,  except  what  was  contrary  to  Scripture,  the 
four  first  councils,  &c.  or  should  be  decided  by  parliament  with 
the  advice  of  the  clergy  in  their  convocation.  (This  related  to 
the  legal  description  of  heresy,  which  was  a  crime  by  law,  and 
liable  to  be  punished  by  burning,  until  the  29th  year  of  Charles 
II.  It  was  only  fit  that  parliament  should  exercise  some  con- 
trol over  the  application  of  so  terrible  a  punishment,  and  see 
that  the  clergy  should  not  exceed  the  limits  of  their  jurisdiction 
in  defining  new  heresies.  In  Austria  no  one  can  even  be 
excommunicated  without  the  previous  judgment  of  the  civil 
powers.)" 

Queen  Elizabeth  at  all  events  never  went  so  far  as  some 
sovereigns  of  the  Roman  communion,  who  have  prohibited 
bishops  from  conferring  orders,  obliged  them  to  take  out  the 
royal  license  to  hold  ordinations,  prescribed  the  most  minute 
points  of  public  service,  silenced  preachers,  suppressed  sees, 
supported  heresy  against  the  church,  compelled  bishops  to  swear 
obedience  to  all  their  decrees  in  religion,  future  as  well  as  past, 
obliged  the  clergy  to  read  the  bulletins  of  their  armies  in  the 
churches,  compelled  bishops  to  submit  their  pastoral  letters  to 
the  police,  and  instituted  lay  metropolitans  called  ministers  of 
worship,  p 

V.  If  it  be  said  that  the  Articles  themselves  declare,  that  "  if 
any  man,  through  his  private  judgment,  openly  breaks  the  cere- 
monies of  the  church  which  be  ordained  by  common  authority, 
he  shall  be  openly  rebuked  as  one  that  offendeth  against  the 
common  order  of  the  church,  and  hurteth  the  authority  of  the 
magistrate,"'^  and  therefore  that  the  civil  magistrate  is  acknow- 
ledged to  have  authority  in  such  matters,  and  may  alter  the 
worship  of  the  church  as  he  pleases'' — I  reply  that  the  common 


o  Rechberger,  Enchir.  Jur.  Eccl.  Austr.  s.  259. 

p  See  Part  I.  Chapter  X.    Append.  I.  II.  III.       '^  Article  XXXIV. 

r  Towgood  on  Dissent,  p.  10. 


CHAP,  v.]  REFORMATION  UNDER  ELIZABETH. 


453 


authority  spoken  of,  means  the  authority,  of  church  as  well 
as  state,  and  the  latter  is  only  confirmatory  of  the  former,  or  at 
least  only  temporal ;  and  cannot  effect  alterations  contrary  to 
the  will  of  the  church,  so  as  to  have  any  obligation  in  for o 
conscienti(E. 

VI.  In  fine,  the  convocation  of  the  clergy  in  the  reign  of 
Elizabeth  completed  the  reformation  of  the  church  of  England. 
In  1562,  they  compiled  and  authorized  the  XXXIX.  Articles 
of  Christian  doctrine,  which  were  published  and  confirmed 
legally  by  the  supreme  temporal  authority.  In  1 571,  and  1603, 
they  enacted  canons  in  their  convocations,  which  were  con- 
firmed by  Elizabeth  and  James  I.  Thus  the  ritual,  Articles, 
and  discipline  of  the  church  of  England  do  not  rest  merely  on 
temporal  authority,  but  on  the  original  sanction  and  subsequent 
practice  and  custom  of  the  catholic  churches  of  these  realms. 


CHAPTER  VI. 

ON    THE   PRINCIPLES   OF  THE   ENGLISH   REFORMATION. 

Having  examined  the  mode  of  reformation  in  these  churches, 
and  the  authority  by  which  it  was  effected,  we  are  now  to  enter 
on  a  most  important  question  : — the  principles  of  the  Enghsh 
reformation.  These  principles  have  been  so  often  misrepre- 
sented by  the  opponents  of  our  catholic  apostolic  churches,  that 
it  becomes  a  matter  of  necessity  to  clear  them  from  the  impu- 
tation of  schism,  heresy,  and  anarchy,  by  the  weight  of  facts. 

It  has  been  already  shown  that  one  leading  principle  of  that 
reformation,  namely  the  authority  of  provincial  or  national 
churches  to  correct  doctrine  and  discipline  without  the  necessity 
of  waiting  for  the  formal  judgment  of  the  Roman  pontiff,  or  of 
the  universal  church,  is  free  from  all  imputation  of  schism  or 
heresy.^ 

But  we  are  assured  that  the  main,  essential  principle  of  the 
Reformation  was  the  liberty  of  interpreting  Scripture  according 
to  our  private  fancies,  in  opposition  to  the  doctrine  and  the 
judgments  of  the  catholic  church  of  Christ  in  all  ages. 

I  believe  that  not  one  of  those  who  brought  about  the  Reforma- 
tion ever  ventured  to  maintain  such  a  principle  ;  and  although 
some  individuals  may  have  spoken  incautiously  on  the  subject 
of  catholic  doctrine,  when  they  were  pressed  with  erroneous 
positions,  deduced  from  spurious  writings,  which  an  imperfect 
criticism  prevented  them  from  promptly  rejecting  ;  the  testi- 
mony of  a  universal  consent  of  Christians,  was  generally  re- 
spected by  those  who  were  favourable  to  reformation. 

In  England  the  supremacy  and  sufficiency  of  Scripture 
was  most  rightly  maintained,  not  against  a  cathohc  tradition 
teaching  the  same  doctrines  as  Scripture  itself,  and  therefore 

*  See  Chapter  11. 


CHAP.  VI.]  UNWRITTEN  TRADITION.  ;  455 

Strictly  confirmatory  of  Scripture  ;  but  against  a  tradition  ima- 
gined to  convey  articles  of  faith  in  addition  to  those  which 
Scripture  contained.  The  title  of  Dr.  Smythe's  book  "  De 
veritatibus  7ion  scriptis,''''  intimates  the  principle  of  the  papal 
party.  The  Romish  controversialists  of  that  age  founded  some 
of  their  articles  of  faith  on  unwritten  tradition  merely :  against 
them  it  was  maintained  that  for  every  article  of  faith  there  ought 
to  be  scriptural  prOof ;  but  it  Was  never  supposed  that  particular 
churches  were  at  liberty  to  affix  whatever  meaning  they  pleased 
to  Scripture,  contrary  to  the  doctrine  of  the  catholic  church  in 
all  ages  ;  still  less  was  it  imagined,  that  private  individuals 
might  lawfully  hold  whatever  doctrines  they  should  themselves 
devise,  without  paying  reverence  to  the  authority  of  that  branch 
of  the  church  in  which  they  should  abide,  and  entire  obedience 
to  that  of  the  church  universal  in  all  ages. 

I  proceed  to  prove  that  the  catholic  and  primitive  doctrine, 
and  the  authority  of  the  church  of  Christ,  as  opposed  to  modern 
abuses,  and  to  the  license  of  an  unbridled  private  judgmiCnt, 
were  the  principles  of  the  English  Reformation. 

The  abolition  of  the  papal  jurisdiction,  it  will  be  allowed,  was 
a  considerable  act  of  reformation  :  but  we  find  from  history  that 
those  who  supported  that  measure,  argued  not  only  from  Scrip- 
ture, but  from  the  doctrine  and  practice  of  the  primitive  church, 
the  oecumenical  councils,  the  invalidity  of  later  councils  called 
general,  the  doctrine  of  the  fathers,  the  customs  of  the  church 
of  England,  and  of  other  churches  in  modern  times.''  Of  these 
arguments  we  find  a  good  specimen  in  bishop  Tunstall's  letter 
to  cardinal  Pole.'^ 

The  recognition  of  the  royal  supremacy  was  no  inconsiderable 
proceeding  of  the  reformation.  We  find  that  it  was  argued  for, 
not  only  from  Scripture,  but  from  the  doctrine  of  the  fathers, 
and  the  exercise  of  such  a  power  in  the  church  formerly,  and 
the  customs  and  laws  of  the  realm  of  Endand.'^     Communion 

O 


Burnet,  i.  250— 257.     '  Ibid.iii.     Records,  52.    <>  Ibid.  1.357— 261. 


456  PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  BRITISH  REFORMATION.      [PART  II. 

in  both  kinds  was  received,  not  only  as  being  more  agreeable  to 
Christ's  first  institution,  but  to  "  the  practice  of  the  church  for 
five  hundred  years  after  Christ."^  The  question  of  the  divorce 
of  the  marquis  of  Northampton  was  judged,  not  only  from  the 
authority  of  Scripture,  but  on  "the  authorities  of  the  fathers  " 
and  councils  of  the  church/  In  the  public  disputations  on  the 
eucharist  at  Oxford,  a.  d.  1549,  before  Ridley  and  the  king's 
commissioners,  the  argument  of  those  opposed  to  the  Romish 
doctrine,  was  derived  from  the  ancient  fathers  as  well  as  from 
Scripture.^ 

The  "  Necessary  Doctrine,"  &c.  agreed  on  by  the  whole 
church  of  England  in  1543,  says  :  "  All  those  things  which 
were  taught  by  the  apostles,  and  have  been  by  a  whole  univer- 
sal consent  of  the  church  of  Christ  ever  sith  that  time  taught 
continually,  and  taken  always  for  true,  ought  to  be  received, 
accepted,  and  kept,  as  a  perfect  doctrine  apostolic."'^  It  declares 
that  all  Christians  must  take  the  articles  of  the  creed,  "  and 
interpretate  all  the  same  things,  according  to  the  self-same  sen- 
tence and  interpretation  which  the  words  of  Scripture  do  signify, 
and  the  holy  approved  doctors  of  the  church  do  agreeably  entreat 
and  defend ;"  and  that  they  must  refuse  and  condemn  all  opinions, 
"which  were  of  long  time  past  condemned  in  the  four  holy 
councils."' 

Cranmer  evidently  acknowledged  the  authority  of  catholic 
tradition.  On  what  other  ground  could  he  have  made  those 
voluminous  collections  of  extracts  from  the  fathers,  the  councils, 
the  schoolmen,  and  the  canonists,  of  which  we  read  ?  In  his 
speech  ongeneral  councils,  a.d.  1534  or  1535,  he  said,  "  that 
when  all  the  fathers  agreed  in  the  exposition  of  any  place  of 
Scripture,  he  acknowledged  he  looked  on  that  as  flowing  from 
the  Spirit  of  God ;  and  it  was  a  most  dangerous  thing  to  be 
wise  in  our  own  conceits."^     We  see  another  example  of  his 

<=  Ibid.  ii.  76,  77.  f  Ibid..ii.  104—108.  s  Ibid.  ii.  198—204. 

h  Formularies  of  Faith,  p.  221.  i  Ibid.  p.  227. 

^  Cranmers  Works,  vol.  ii.  p.  14.  by  Jenkins. 


CHAP.  VI.]        AUTHORITY  OP  UNIVERSAL  TRADITION.  457 

veneration  for  the  tradition  of  the  church,  in  his  papers  on  jus- 
tification, vv^here  are  many  passages  from  the  fathers  and  school- 
men down  to  the  time  of  Aquinas  and  Bonaventure.^  His 
epistle  to  Joachim  Vadianus  says,  with  reference  to  certain 
writings  of  Zuinghus  and  Qilcolampadius  :  "  so  far  as  they 
have  endeavoured  to  point  out  and  correct  papistical  and  sophis- 
tical errors,  I  praise  and  approve  them.  And  would  that  they 
had  contained  themselves  within  those  bounds,  and  had  not 
trampled  on  the  fruit  as  well  as  the  tares,  that  is,  violated  at 
the  same  time  the  authority  of  the  ancient  doctors,  and  earliest 
writers  in  the  church  of  Christ.""'  When  Ridley  had  been 
induced  by  the  perusal  of  the  ancient  writer  Bertram  on  the 
eucharist,  to  change  his  opinion,  Cranmer  being  shaken  by 
him,  re-examined  the  doctrine  of  the  fathers  with  the  greatest 
care,''  and  in  his  work  on  the  eucharist,  he  refers  continually 
to  them  in  confirmation  of  his  opinions  :  he  advances  nothing 
without  adducing  their  testimony  (not  always  indeed  well  under- 
stood). In  his  preface  to  the  Bible,  a.d.  1540,  he  uses,  as  he 
says,  "  the  authority  of  St.  Gregory  Nazianzen  and  St.  John 
Chrysostom  "  in  proof  of  the  use  of  reading  the  Bible,  and  in 
admonition  to  the  readers."  Even  in  his  epistle  to  queen  Mary 
(September,  1555),  stating  the  reasons  by  which  he  had  main- 
tained his  doctrine  of  the  eucharist  in  his  examination  by 
Brooks,  he  says,  "  Herein  I  said  I  would  be  judged  by  the  old 
church,  and  which  doctrine  could  be  proved  the  elder,  that  I 
would  stand  unto."p  And  that  his  respect  for  the  doctrine  of 
the  catholic  church  was  not  Hmited  merely  to  the  primitive 
church,  appears  from  his  appeal  to  a  general  council.  "  I 
intend  to  speak  nothing  against  one,  holy,  catholic  and  apos- 


1  Cranmer's  Works,  vol.  ii.  p.  121,   &c.     Soames,  Hist.  Ref.  vol.  ii. 
p.  526. 
tn  Cranmer's  Works,  vol.  i.  p.  195. 
u  Le  Bas,  Life  of  Craiomer,  vol.  i.  p.  815. 
o  Cranmer's  Works,  vol.  ii.  p.  113. 
p  Ibid.  vol.  i.  p.  380. 

VOL.  I. — 58 


458  THE  BRITISH  REFORMATION.  [PART  II. 

tolic  church,  or  the  authority  thereof,  the  which  authority  I 
have  in  great  reverence,  and  to  whom  my  mind  is  in  all  things 
to  obey."i  "  I  protest  that  it  was  never  my  mind  to  write, 
speak,  or  understand  any  thing  contrary  to  the  most  holy  word 
of  God,  or  else  against  the  holy  catholic  church  of  Christ." 
"In  this  thing,  I  only  am  accused  for  an  heretic,  because  I 
allow  not  the  doctrine  lately  brought  in  of  the  sacrament ;  and 
because  I  consent  not  to  words  not  accustomed  in  Scripture, 
and  unknown  to  the  ancient  fathers.""^ 

Bishop  Ridley  reverenced  equally  the  testimony  of  cathohc 
tradition.  He  protested  that  he  did  not  dispute  the  doctrine  of 
the  "  real  presence  founded  in  the  word  of  God,  and  illustrated 
by  the  commentaries  of  the  orthodox  fathers."^  Bishop  Poynet 
in  his  treatise  on  the  eucharist  appeals  to  the  tradition  of  the 
church  universal.'  Mr.  Philpot,  when  imprisoned  by  the  Ro- 
mish faction  in  the  reign  of  queen  Mary,  wrote  thus  to  a  fellow- 
prisoner  :  "  Let  us  all  that  be  obedient  children  of  God,  sub- 
mit ourselves  to  the  judgment  of  the  church,  for  the  better 
understanding  of  our  faith  and  of  the  doubtful  sentences  of 
the  Scripture.  Let  us  not  go  about  to  show  in  us,  by  follow- 
ing any  man's  private  interpretation  of  the  word,  another  spirit 
than  they  of  the  primitive  church  had.  .  .  .  Let  us  believe 
as  they  have  taught  us  of  the  Scriptures,  and  be  at  peace  with 
them,  according  as  the  true  cathohc  church  is  at  this  day."'' 
Bradford  says  :  "  This  faith,  this  doctrine,  which  consenteth 
with  the  word  of  God,  and  with  the  true  testimony  of  Christ's 
church,  will  I  not  forsake,"''  &c.     Bishop  Jewel  says  :  "  We 


q  Ibid.  vol.  iv.  p.  121. 
•     r  Ibid.  p.  127.     The  Treatise  on  unwritten  Verities  which  has  been  at- 
tributed to  Cranmer,  and  which  speaks  less  respectfully  of  the  doctrine  of 
the  fathers,  was  not  written  by  him. — See  Jenkyns's  Cranmer,  vol.  i.  p.  Iv. 

s  Ridlagi  Protestatio,  Enchirid.  Theolog.  p.  53. 

t  Poynet,  Diallacticon. 

u  See  the  letter  cited  in  the  British  Magazine  for  1836,  p.  50. 

"  Martyrs'  Letters,  p.  265.  270.  cited  by  Mr.  Churton. 


CHAP.  VI.]  AUTHORITY   OF  UNIVERSAL  TRADITION. 


459 


are  come  as  near  as  we  possibly  could  to  the  church  of  the 
apostles,  and  of  the  old  catholic  bishops  and  fathers  ;  and  have 
directed,  according  to  their  customs  and  ordinances,  not  only 
our  doctrine,  but  also  the  sacraments,  and  the  form  of  common 
prayer.""' 

In  accordance  with  these  principles  the  preface  of  the  re- 
formed ritual,  composed  a.d.  1548,  refers  us  to  "the  ancient 
fathers  "  for  the  original  of  divine  service,  and  declares  that 
what  is  now  set  forth  is  "  much  agreeable  to  the  mind  and 
purpose  of  the  old  fathers."^  In  the  preface  to  the  ordinal 
composed  a.d.  1552,  the  three  orders  of  the  sacred  ministry  are 
continued,  on  account  of  its  appearing  from  "  Scripture  and 
ancient  authors,  that  from  the  apostles'  time  there  have  been 
those  three  orders  of  ministers  in  Christ's  church."  The  homi- 
hes,  composed  in  1547  and  1562,  continually  refer  to  the 
authority  of  the  fathers  in  confirmation  of  the  true  doctrine  -J 
and  the  convocation  of  the  clergy  of  England  in  1571  again 
solemnly  recognized  the  authority  of  catholic  tradition,  in  their 
canon  concerning  preachers.  "  Let  preachers  above  all  things 
be  careful  that  they  never  teach  aught  in  a  sermon,  to  be  reli-  ■ 
giously  held  and  believed  by  the  people,  except  that  which  is 
aareeable  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament ;  and 
which  the  catholic  fathers  and  ancient  bishops  have  collected 
from  that  very  doctrine." 

Thus  the  authority  of  catholic  tradition  was  recognized  by 
the  church  of  England  and  by  all  our  learned  theologians.  It 
would  take  up  too  much  space  to  cite  the  concurrent  testimonies 
of  Taylor,  Nowell,  Hooker,  Bancroft,  Bilson,  Overall,  Morton, 
Field,  White,  Hall,  Laud,  Montague,  Jackson,  Mede,  Usher, 
Bramhall,  Sanderson,  Cosin,  Hammond,  Thorndike,  Jeremy 
Taylor,    Heylin,   Pearson,   Barrow,   Bull,    Stillingfleet,    Ken, 


™  Jewel,  Apologia,  p.  156.  ed.  1606. 
^  Preface  to  Book  of  C.  P. 

y  See  Sermon  concerning  Prayer,  part  ii.  Place  and  time  of  Prayer,  ad 
fin. ;  Horn,  on  Com.  Prayer  and  Sacraments ;  Serm.  on  Alms-deeds,  &c. 


460  •  THE  BRITISH  REFORMATION.  [pART  II. 

Beveridge,  Patrick,  Sharp,  Leslie,  Potter,  and  others  innu- 
merable of  our  primates,  bishops,  doctors,  and  theologians,  who 
have  all  maintained  the  authority  of  catholic  traditition.^  So 
great  is  the  reverence  which  we  have  always  paid  to  that  tra- 
dition, that  it  has  been  remarked  and  judged  excessive  by  some 
of  the  Lutheran  and  Calvinistic  societies.  The  Lutheran 
Walchius  says  :  "To  those  who  attribute  too  much  to  the 
fathers  of  the  church,  the  episcopalians  or  hierarchicals  as  they 
are  called,  in  England,  have  united  themselves  ;  amongst  whom 
the  authority  of  the  fathers  is  very  great,  since  they  persuade 
themselves  that  they  find  in  their  writings  a  great  support  for 
their  notion  concerning  the  divine  origin  of  the  episcopate,  and 
concerning  the  retention  of  the  rites  and  discipline  of  the  ancient 
church.  For  this  reason  amongst  others,  they  abhor  the  work 
of  Daille  on  the  use  of  the  fathers,  because  they  believe  that 
he  has  too  much  detracted  from  their  authority.  Beveridge 
avows  this."* 

It  is  evident  then  that  the  authority  of  catholic  tradition  and 
of  the  universal  church,  as  opposed  to  the  unlimited  freedom 
of  private  inventions,  was  continually  recognized  in  the  church 
of  England  during  the  whole  reformation,  and  always  after- 
wards. Indeed  so  little  was  thought  of  the  right  of  individuals 
to  hold  their  own  inventions  and  dogmas  in  those  days,  that 
we  find  even  corporal  severities  exercised  by  those  who  pro- 
moted the  reformation,  against  those  who  held  heretical  doc- 
trines. Thus  in  1549  Cranmer  and  Ridley  were  on  the  com- 
mission  which  condemned  Joan  of  Kent  for  heresy,  and  the 
archbishop  himself  obtained  the  signature  of  king  Edward  VI. 
to  the  warrant  for  her  burning,  at  which  bishop  Scory  preach- 


^  See  the  Appendix  to  bishop  Jebb's  Sermons ;  the  Rev.  E.  Churton's 
valuable  Sermon,  "  The  Church  of  England  a  witness  and  keeper  of  the 
Catholic  tradition,"  Appendix  A.  ;  Rev.  J.  F.  Russel's  Judgment  of  the 
Anglican  Church ;  and  the  publication  entitled  "  Tracts  for  the  Times,"  No. 
78  ;  ibr  the  sentiments  of  all  the  theologians  mentioned  above. 

*  Walchii  Bibliotheca  Patristica,  cap.  xv.  s.  9. 


CHAP.  VI.]       AUTHORITY    OF    UNIVERSAL    TRADITION.  461 

ed  the  'sermon.^  Van  Pare,  a  Dutch  heretic,  was  condemned 
in  like  manner,  a.d.  1551  ;  and  in  the  time  of  queen  Ehzabeth, 
bishop  Jewell  in  his  Apology  declares  that  "  we  not  only  con- 
demn the  old  heretics,  as  Arians,  Eutychians,  Marcionites,  &c., 
and  pronounce  them  impious  and  lost,  and  detest  them  to  the 
gates  of  hell,  but  even  if  they  anywhere  break  forth  and  show 
themselves,  we  restrain  them  severely  and  seriously  with  law- 
ful and  civil  punishments.""  In  fact  the  writ  "de  Heeretico 
comburendo"  was  in  force  till  the  twenty-ninth  year  of  Charles 
II.,  and  not  unfrequently  acted  upon.  Of  course  I  do  not  ap- 
prove the  principle  of  persecution  here  laid  down  by  Jewell, 
but  it  is  an  absolute  demonstration  that  the  principle  of  the 
liberty  of  private  judgment  to  oppose  the  true  doctrine  of  Scrip- 
ture confirmed  by  cathohc  testimony,  was  not  the  principle  of 
those  times. 

The  doctrine  then  maintained  was  the  authority  of  the 
CHURCH  :  "  The  church  hath  power  to  decree  rites  and  cere- 
monies,  and    AUTHORITY    IN  CONTROVERSIES    OF  FAITH."       (Art, 

XX.  A.D.  1562.)  And  accordingly  it  is  afterwards  said: 
"  Whosoever,  through  his  private  judgment,  willingly  and 
purposely  doth  openly  break  the  traditions  and  ceremonies  of 
the  church,  which  be  not  repugnant  to  the  word  of  God,  and  be 
ordained  and  approved  by  common  authority,  ought  to  be  re- 
buked openly,"  &c.  ;'^  the  church  herself,  of  course,  being  the 
judge  of  this  repugnance.^  Even  the  parhaments  which  estab- 
lished the  Reformation,  acknowledged  the  authority  of  tradi- 
tion, and  of  the  catholic  church.  The  act  (1547)  appointing 
communion  in  both  kinds,  and  the  people  to  receive  it  with  the 


^  Le  Bas,  Cranmer,  vol.  i.  p.  334.     Burnet,  vol.  ii. 

c  Juelli  Apolog.  p.  5.  ^  Article  XXXIV. 

e  Towgood  the  dissenter  says  :  "  Of  this  repugnance  and  contrariety, 
the  church  alone,  you  will  observe,  and  not  every  private  person,  is  allow- 
ed to  be  the  proper  judge,  for  otherwise  the  Article  is  absurd  :  it  actually 
overthrows  itself,  and  takes  away  with  one  hand  what  it  gives  with  the 
other." — On  Pissent,  p.  6,  7. 


462     ,  THE    BRITISH    REFORMATION.  [PART  II. 

priest,  went  on  the  ground  of  "  the  practice  of  the  chitrch  for 
five  hundred  years  after  Christ,"  and  "  the  primitive  practice."^ 
The  Act  for  the  Royal  Supremacy  (1559)  declared,  that  such 
persons  as  should  be  commissioned  by  the  queen  to  reform  and 
order  ecclesiastical  matters,  should  judge  nothing  to  be  heresy, 
but  what  had  been  already  so  judged  by  the  authority  of  the 
canonical  Scriptures,  or  by  the  first  four  general  councils,  or 
by  any  other  general  council  in  which  such  doctrines  were  de- 
clared to  be  heresies  by  the  express  and  plain  words  of  Scrip- 
ture. All  other  points,  not  so  decided,  were  to  be  judged  by 
the  parhament,  with  the  assent  of  the  clergy  in  their  convoca- 
tion. §• 

It  is  strange  that  in  opposition  to  the  weight  of  such  facts, 
the  principle  of  the  Reformation  should  be  assumed  to  be  that 
of  the  right  of  individuals  to  oppose  their  own  judgments  to  the 
true  doctrine  of  Scripture,  taught  by  the  tradition  of  the  univer- 
sal church  in  all  ages.  I  know  not  what  answer  can  be  made 
to  the  above  facts,  except  that  the  principle  of  the  Reformation 
ought  to  have  been  this,  and  that  it  is  indefensible  on  any  other: 
but  we  are  satisfied  with  the  principle  of  the  English  Reforma- 
tion as  it  actually  was,  because  we  believe  it  was  orthodox, 
and  consistent  with  common  sense,  and  accordingly  always  and 
in  all  places  received  by  Christians  ;  and  as  for  the  defence  of 
the  Reformation,  we  are  content  to  undertake  it  without  the  aid 
of  the  principle  which  later  ages  have  attempted  to  create 
for  it. 

The  principle  of  reverence  for  catholic  tradition,  as  maintain- 
ed by  the  church  of  England,  was  a  principle  calculated  not 
merely  for  the  maintenance  of  Christian  truths  always  received, 
but  it  was  essentially  a  corrective  and  reforming  principle  ;  for 
it  taught  the  church  to  look  beyond  the  limits  of  existing  prac- 
tices and  opinions  into  the  mind  of  all  ages,  and  to  take  the  belief 
of  the  universal  church  in  most  holy  union  with  Scripture,  as  the 


f  Act  1.  Edw.  VI.  c.  1.  ■  6  Act  I.  Eliz.  c.  1. 


CHAP.  VI.]         AUTHORITY    OF    UNIVERSAL    TRADITION.  ,      463 

rule  by  which  she  might  be  enabled  to  give  due  importance  to 
matters  essential,  and  to  correct  abuses  and  innovations  incon- 
sistent with  the  apostolic  truth.  And  it  was  a  principle  fraught 
with  practical  wisdom,  because  it  placed  before  her  the  expe- 
rience and  examples  of  fifteen  hundred  years,  to  guide  and  ad- 
monish her  in  her  proceedings. 

There  may  be  one  other  answer  made  to  this  : — that  the 
church  of  England  herself  did  not  understand  the  true  princi- 
ples of  the  Reformation  ;  that  we  must  look  for  those  principles 
amongst  the  Lutherans  or  Calvinists.  But  I  have  already 
shown  that  they  also  were  abundant  in  their  acknowledgments 
of  the  authority  of  the  catholic  church,  and  of  general  and  na- 
tional synods  in  matters  of  faith ;  that  they  shrank  from  the 
imputation  of  setting  up  their  private  opinions  against  the  autho- 
rity of  the  catholic  church  ;  that  they  never  designed  or  wished 
to  separate  themselves  from  the  existing  Roman  churches ; 
that  the  Reformation  in  itself  was,  in  a  great  degree,  brought 
about  without  a  previous  design  on  their  parts  ;  that  they  were 
ready  to  alter  their  systems  much,  if  the  Roman  church  would 
have  made  some  concessions  and  re-admitted  them  to  her  com- 
munion.^ There  are  facts  enough  to  prove  all  this,  and  to 
show  that  our  churches  do  not  stand  alone  in  recognizing  the 
authority  of  catholic  tradition.  Therefore  there  is  error  in  both 
the  assertions  on  which  Blackburn  founds  his  attack  upon  the 
Articles  of  the  church  of  England  ;  viz.  that  "  the  protestants 
withdrew  from  the  communion  of  the  church  of  Rome,"  and 
that  the  principle  on  which  they  did  so,  was  the  right  of  an  un- 
bounded liberty  (so  called)  of  private  judgment,  and  the  rejec- 
tion of  all  church  authority.'  Indeed  Blackburn  himself  is 
compelled,  by  the  force  of  truth,  to  acknowledge  that  the  re- 
formers tliemselves  afterwards  "  took  their  interpretations  of 
Scripture,"  and  "formed  their  rule  of  faith  and  doctrine"  on 
"  the  sense  of  the  orthodox  fathers  ;  "'^  that  "  in  those  days  no- 


Part  I.  Chapter  XII.  '  Blackburn's  Confessional,  p.  1,  2. 

■^  Ibid.  p.  3. 


464  THE    BRITISH    REFORMATION.  [PART  II. 

thing  was  thouglit  to  be  sufficiently  confirmed  by  Scripture 
testimonies,  without  additional  vouchers  from  the  ancient  wor- 
thies of  the  church  ;  "^  that  "  in  process  of  time  some  particu- 
lar persons  began  to  see  into  this  mistake,"  and  Cartwright, 
(the  Puritan)  "in  his  dispute  with  Archbishop  Whitgift,  about 
the  year  1573,  took  the  courage  to  appeal  from  the  authority 
of  the  fathers  ;"  that  his  sentiments  were  regarded  "  as  so  much 
blasphemy ; "  that  when  Erasmus  Johannes,  a  schoolmaster  at 
Antwerp,  a  few  years  afterwards  assailed  the  fathers  and  coun- 
cils, "  the  times  were  not  ripe  for  the  toleration  of  these  senti- 
ments," and  he  was  "obliged  to  fly  his  country  1""^  These 
facts,  admitted  as  they  are  by  a  despiser  and  an  enemy  of  ca- 
tholic tradition,  are  of  the  highest  value  :  they  show  what  the 
general  sentiment  of  the  Reformation  was,  and  they  render  it 
utterly  incredible  that  it  could  have  been  originally  founded  in 
the  contradictory  principle  ;  because  if  it  had  been  so,  how 
could  all  have  concurred  immediately  afterwards  in  adopting 
the  principle  of  obedience  to  the  doctrine  of  the  catholic 
church? 


P.  20.  ■=  P.  21, 22. 


CHAPTER  VII. 

> 

ON  THE  VARIATIONS  OP  THE  ENGLISH  CHURCH. 

The  regulations  made  by  our  catholic  apostolical  churches 
•concerning  doctrine  and  discipline  during  the  sixteenth  cen- 
tury, have  been  maliciously  traduced  by  our  opponents,  as  af- 
fordino;  evidence  of  heretical  variations  and  inconsistencies.  The 
mere  circumstance  of  a  church's  altering  her  doctrine  or  disci- 
pline in  some  point  affords  no  presumption  of  heresy.  The  Afri- 
can churches,  in  the  time  of  Cyprian,  maintained  the  invalidity 
of  heretical  baptism.  In  the  time  of  Augustine  they  decreed  the 
contrary.  The  Western  churches  practised  communion  in  both 
kinds  till  the  thirteenth  century :  the  Synod  of  Constance  con- 
firmed the  opposite  practice.  The  Western  churches,  in  the 
ninth  century  condemned  the  worship  of  images  ;  yet  afterwards 
many  of  them  permitted  the  custom.  For  a  long  time  they 
acknowledged  the  Roman  pontiffs  to  have  temporal  authority 
over  princes  ;  yet  this  doctrine  was  afterwards  rejected  by  the 
Gallican  and  other  churches.  The  churches  of  Spain  hold  the 
immaculate  conception  of  the  Virgin  as  a  matter  of  faith ;  yet  it 
will  hardly  be  contended,  that  they  might  not  maintain  the  con- 
trary doctrine.  In  France  the  superiority  of  a  general  synod  to 
a  pope  was  held  defide,  yet  it  is  so  no  longer. 

The  variation  then,  so  justly  assigned  as  a  note  of  heresy  by 
Tertullian,  Hilary,  and  other  fathers,  does  not  relate  to  the  mere 
correction  of  prevalent  errors  and  abuses  by  competent  authori- 
ty ;  but  to  the  fluctuation,  contradictions,  and  uncertainty  of 
sects  who  separate  from  the  church.  Variation  in  this  sense, 
or  as  implying  inconsistency,  or  sanction  of  what  is  admitted  to 
be  heresy  or  dangerous  error,  affords  a  legitimate  presumption 
of  unsoundness. 

VOL.  I. — 59 


466  THE  BRITISH  REFORMATION.  [PART   II. 

But  of  such  variations  there  is  no  evidence  in  the  Reforma- 
tion of  the  church  of  England,  which  proceeded  gradually,  con- 
sistently, and  lawfully,  in  the  correction  of  modern,  though  pre- 
valent errors  and  abuses. 

I.  The  Reformation  of  the  church  of  England,  during  the 
reign  of  Henry  VIII.  is  represented  uniformly  by  Bossuet,  and 
our  other  opponents  of  all  "  denominations,"  as  limited  entirely 
to  the  rejection  of  the  Papal  supremacy.*  With  this  single  ex- 
ception, according  to  them,  the  system  previously  existing  was 
received  and  authorized  in  all  points.  Now,  it  will  appear  on 
examination,  that  the  corrections  in  the  reign  of  Henry,  were 
very  little  inferior  in  importance  to  those  made  in  Edward's 
reign. 

Besides  the  rejection  of  the  papal  supremacy  of  jurisdiction 
in  the  convocation  of  1534,''  the  doctrine  of  purgatory  was  dis- 
claimed by  authority  of  the  church  in  1537=  and  1543'^  (she  be- 
ing well  aware  that  the  council  of  Florence,  on  which  it  rests, 
is  of  no  binding  force^).  Indulgences  were  rejected  by  the 
same  authority,^  together  with  all  kneeling,  bowing,  and  offer- 
ing to  images;^  and  all  worship  before  them  was  to  be  directed 
not  to  the  image  itself,  not  even  to  the  saint  represented,  but  to 
God  only.^  The  principle  and  practice  was  established  by  the 
royal  Injunctions  received  by  the  church,  oi  removing  all  images 
abused  by  pilgrimages  and  other  special  honours.'     The  prac- 


*  Bossuet,  Variations,  liv.  vii.  sect.  24 — 28.  37. 

'•  Burnet,  Hist.  Ref.  vol.  i.  and  iii. 

c  Institut.  of  a  Christian  Man,  Formularies  of  Faith,  p.  211.  Oxford  ed. 

d  Necessary  Doctrine  and  Erudition,  ibid.  p.  376. 

e  Ibid.  p.  28.5. 

"■  Formularies  of  Faith,  p.  211.  376. 

6  Articles  about  Religion,  1536.  Formul.  of  Faith,  p.  xxviii.  Institu- 
tion of  a  Christ.  Man.  p.  134,  135.  137.  Injunctions  of  Archbishop  Lee, 
Burnet,  iii.  Records,  57.     Injunct.  Bp.  Sarum,  ibid.  Rec.  59, 

''  Articles,  1536,  p.  xxviii.     Necessary  Doctrine,  p.  300. 

'  Injunctions  of  the  King's  Vicegerent.  Burnet.  Hist.  Ref.  vol.  i.  Re- 
cords, p.  276.     Injunctions  of  Archbishop  Lee,  Bur.  iii.  Rec.  57.     All  such 


CHAP.  VII.]  VARIATIONS.  467 

tice  of  praying  to  saints  for  any  gifts  wa.s  prohibited  by  the 
church,''  and  though  their  invocation  was  still  permitted  under 
certain  limitations  intended  to  divest  it  of  its  most  injurious  ten- 
dency, it  was  discouraged  in  the  public  service.'  The  super- 
stitious use  of  relics  was  also  discouraged,™  and  the  church  pro- 
hibited several  other  abuses,  such  as  using  gospels  for  charms, 
drinking  holy  water  for  the  cure  of  diseases,"  &c.  These  were 
very  important  reforms ;  and  though  some  customs  were  retained 


special  honours  are  prohibited  by  the  Institution  of  a  Christian  Man,  p.  137. 
Milner,  a  noted  papist,  thus  involuntarily  justifies  us  for  removing  images  : 
"  The  learned  Petavius  says,  '  We  must  lay  it  down  as  a  principle,  that  im- 
ages are  to  be  reckoned  among  the  adiaphora,  which  do  not  belong  to  the 
substance  of  religion,  and  which  the  church  may  retain  or  take  away  as  she 
judges  best.' — L.  xv.  de  Incar.  Hence  Dr.  Hawarden,  of  Images,  p.  353, 
teaches,  with  Delphinus,  that  if,  in  any  place,  there  is  danger  of  real  idola- 
try or  superstition  from  pictures,  they  ought  to  be  removed  by  the  pastor, 
as  St.  Epiphanius  destroyed  a  certain  pious  picture,  and  as  Ezechias  de- 
stroyed the  brazen  serpent." — End  of  Controv.  Let.  34.  Now,  that  there 
were  in  fact  great  abuses  and  even  idolatry  in  the  use  of  images  before  and 
after  the  Reformation  is  admitted  by  Cassander  and  other  Roman  viriters. 
— See  Laud,  Conference,  sect.  33,  n.  13.  Bossuet  himself  admits,  that  the 
ignorant  are  in  danger  of  falling  into  idolatry  by  using  images :  "  What 
might  be  feared  for  the  ignorant  is,  that  they  should  believe  the  divine  na- 
ture capable  of  being  represented,  or  rendered  present  in  the  images  ;  or 
regard  them  as  filled  with  some  virtue,  for  which  they  are  honoured  :  these 
are  the  three  characters  of  idolatry.  It  is  not  allowable  to  attribute  more 
virtue  to  one  image  than  to  another ;  nor,  consequently,  to  frequent  one 
more  than  another,  except  in  memory  of  some  miracle  or  pious  history, 
which  may  excite  devotion." — Boss.  Variat.  1.  xv.  sect.  156.  The  Synod 
of  Trent,  as  Bossuet  says,  endeavoured  to  guard  against  these  idolatries 
and  superstitious  ;  but  it  is  well  known  that  the  same  practices  still  remain, 
and  they  will  continue  until  the  example  of  our  catholic  churches  is  followed. 
The  Emperor  Joseph  11.  issued  a  decree  for  the  removal  of  images.  See 
above,  p.  308. 

^  Institution,  p.  141. 

1  Injunctions  of  the  Vicegerent,  Burnet,  ibid.  p.  279; 

"'Injunc.  of  Vicegerent,  Bur.  i.  Rec.  p.  249.  276.  Injunctions  Bp.  Sa- 
rum,  Burnet,  iii.  Rec.  p.  195. 

"  Institution  of  a  Christ.  Man,  p.  133.     Necessary  Doctrine,  p.  293. 


468  THE    BRITISH    REFORMATION.  fPART  II. 

for  a  time,  under  a  hope  that  they  might  be  divested  of  abuse, 
the  principles  developed  in  attempting  their  correction,  led 
naturally  to  their  ultimate  removal,  vv^hen  experience  had  proved 
them  to  be  incorrigible.  It  is  therefore  a  great  misrepresenta- 
tion to  affirm  that  the  papal  supremacy  alone,  was  rejected 
and  suppressed  by  the  church  of  England  in  the  reign  of  Henry 
VIII. 

II.  It  is  asserted  that  our  churches  having  steadfastly  adhered 
to  the  w^hole  Romish  doctrine  in  the  reign  of  Henry  VIII.  re- 
linquished it  immediately  after  the  accession  of  Edward  VI. 
and  became  Zuinglian,  rejecting  especially  the  catholic  doctrine 
of  the  Eucharist.  This  assertion  arises  from  an  erroneous  view 
of  facts,  and  from  not  distinguishing  the  opinions  of  individual 
theologians  from  the  pubhc  and  authorized  doctrine  of  the  church 
of  England. 

It  is  a  fact,  that  no  neio  formulary  of  doctrine  whatever  was 
published  by  authority  of  the  church  during  the  whole  reign  of 
Edward  VI.  The  forty-two  articles  of  religion  compiled  (it  is 
supposed)  by  Cranmer,  Ridley,  and  others,  in  1552,  were  never 
authorized  by  convocation,  °  though  the  royal  council  most  un- 
justifiably published  them  as  so  approved,  for  which  Archbishop 
Cranmer  remonstrated  with  them  in  vain  :p  nor  were  they  ever 
at  any  time  received  as  a  formulary  of  the  church  of  England, 
having  been  put  forth  by  the  king  but  a  few  days  before  his 
death  in  1553,  and  only  subscribed  by  a  few  clergy  in  Canter- 
bury, Norwich,  and  London,  and  in  the  University  of  Cam- 
bridge, who  were  solicited,  but  not  compelled  to  subscribe  by 
the  bishops  Cranmer  and  Ridley.'i  From  this  time  we  hear  no 
more  of  them  as  of  any  authority.  That  no  new  doctrine  was 
established  in  the  church  of  England  during  this  reign  appears 
from  Burnet,  who  observes  with  reference  to  the  above  articles  : 
"  It  seemed  to  be  a  great  want,  that  this  was  so  long  delayed, 


oBurnct,  p.  362,363. 

P  Cranmer's  Works,  by  Jenkyns,  iv.  p.  64,  65.     Burnet,  ibid. 

1  Burnet,  iii.  865—367. 


CHAP.  VII.]  VARIATIONS.  469 

since  the  old  doctrine  had  still  the  legal  authority  on  its 
side;"^  yet  these  articles,  as  we  have  seen,  were  never  actually 
in  force. 

It  seems  plain  indeed,  that  during  the  whole  reign  of  Edward 
VI.  the  doctrine  of  the  church  of  England  was  most  authenti- 
cally represented  by  the  formulary  of  instruction  formally 
approved  by  the  convocation  in  the  reign  of  Henry  VIII.  a.  d. 
1543,^  entitled  "  The  Necessary  Doctrine  and  Erudition,"  a  book 
which  was,  most  assuredly,  quite  opposed  to  the  Zuinglian  doc- 
trines. This  book  was  of  authority  in  the  church  of  England 
during  the  remainder  of  King  Henry's  reign.  In  1546,  Arch- 
bishop Cranmer,  in  writing  to  the  king  concerning  the  abolition 
of  certain  ceremonies,  recognizes  it  as  of  authority  in  the  church.' 
The  first  book  of  our  Homilies,  published  in  1547  (the  first  year 
of  Edward  VI.),  chiefly  relates  to  Christian  morals,  but  it  terms 
matrimony  a  sacrament ;"  (indeed  the  second  book  of  Homilies 
speaks  of  ordination  and  "  other  sacraments,^^"'  besides  baptism 
and  the  Eucharist) ;  and  at  the  end  of  this  book  of  Homilies  we 
read  of  "the  due  receiving  of  Christ's  body  and  blood  under 
the  form  of  bread  and  wine."  This  is  all  very  consistent  with 
the  Necessary  Doctrine,  but  it  is  not  Zuinglian.  Immediately 
after  the  publication  of  the  Homilies,  Gardiner  objected  to  the 
doctrine  of  Justification  there  laid  down,  as  inconsistent  with 
that  of  the  Necessary  Doctrine,  assuming  the  latter  to  be  of 
authority  still."^    Again,  in  1551,  in  arguing  against  the  opinions 

■■  Burnet,  iii.  361. 

»  Wilkins'  Concilia  Magna  Britannia,  torn.  iii.  p.  868. 

t  Cranmer's  Works,  i.  p.  322. 

u  "  By  like  holy  promise,  the  sacrament  oj  matrimony  knitteth  man  and 
wife  in  perpetual  love." — Sermon  on  Swearing,  part  i. 

"  "  Though  the  ordering  of  ministers  hath  this  visible  sign  or  promise,  yet 
it  lacks  the  promise  of  remission  of  sin,  as  all  other  sacraments  besides  the 
two  above-named  do.  Therefore  neither  it,  nor  any  other  sacrament  else, 
be  such  sacraments  as  baptism  and  the  communion  are." — On  Common 
Prayer  and  Sacraments,  part  i. 

Burnet,  ii.  p.  67.     Le  Bas,  Cranmer,  i.  285. 


470  THE    BRITISH    REFORMATION.  [PART  II. 

of  Cranmer  on  the  Eucharist,  he  appealed  to  the  doctrine  con- 
fessed by  the  whole  clergy  of  England  in  an  open  council,  and 
"  never  hitherto  by  any  public  council  or  any  thing  set  forth  by 
authority  impaired."^  Nor  could  any  effectual  answer  be  made 
to  this  ;  and,  accordingly,  not  only  does  Cranmer  disclaim  the 
notion  that  Gardiner  had  been  brought  to  trial  for  his  doctrine 
on  the  Eucharist,^  but  none  of  the  bishops  of  the  popish  party 
who  were  expelled  from  their  sees  in  Edward's  reign,  were 
deprived  on  pretence  of  their  holding  doctrines  contrary  to  those 
of  the  church,  but  for  disobedience  to  the  royal  council,  or  for 
treason. 

Thus  it  appears  that  the  authorized  doctrine  of  the  church 
of  England,  during  the  whole  of  Edward  the  Sixth's  reign,  was 
that  of  the  real  presence,  in  the  strongest  and  most  decided 
sense. ^  It  is  true  that  there  were  considerable  discussions  and 
controversies  concerning  the  mode  of  the  presence,  between 
Cranmer,  Ridley,  Poynet,  &c.  on  the  one  side,  and  Gardiner, 
Tunstall,  and  Smythe  on  the  other ;  and  therefore  it  may  be 
concluded,  that  at  that  time  the  mode  of  the  presence  was  held 
undecided  by  the  church  of  England,  as  in  fact  she  had  avoided 


^  Cranmer's  Works,  by  Jenkyns,  vol.  i.  p.  xlviii ;  vol.  iii.  p.  363. 

y  Cranmer's  Works,  vol.  iii.  p.  36.    Le  Bas'  Cranmer,  vol.  ii.  p.  40, 41. 

X  ["  The  broken  bread  and  blessed  wyne  be  institute  purposely  to  resolve 
and  ascertayn  our  senses  that  we  as  materially  and  truly  though  not  grossely 
or  sensyblie  but  ghostly  rcceave  and  eate  Christes  body  and  drinke  his  bloud 
as  we  do  the  foresayd."— "  Albeit  the  consecrate  bread  is  named  Christ's 
body,  yet  is  it  not  the  sayde  body  ne  chaunged  into  the  same,  but  so  called 
in  consyderacion  therwyth  the  sayd  body  is  both  sygnifyed,  presented,  and 
exhibited." — "  Notwythstandinge  Christes  body  be  presented  in  the  bred  (as 
questionles  it  is)  not  placely,  as  ther  placed,  spaced,  and  mesured,  but 
ghostly,  as  ther  unplaced,  unspaced,  and  not  measured  ;  howbeit,  it  is  not 
enbreaded  [impanated]  no  more  then  thedeytie  isrecompted  enfleshed,/(?r 
that  it  is  substancially  in  us."  A  Treatise  againste  the  Prevee  Masse,  &c. 
by  Edmund  Gest.  [a  principal  agent  in  the  compilation  of  the  Liturgy,  as 
the  deputy  of  Archbishop  Parker;  afterward  bishop  of  Rochester,  and 
successor  of  Jewel  in  the  see  of  Sarum  ;]  mdxlvhi.  (Life  and  Character 
of  Edmund  Geste,  &c.,  8vo.  London,  1840.  Appendix  L)  p.  81.  84.  86. 


CHAP.  VII.]  VARIATIONS,  471 

.the  term  Transubstantiation  in  the  Necessary  Doctrine,  and 
while  a  change  of  substance  was  there  strongly  asserted,  this 
might  be  understood  in  several  senses,^  though  I  admit  that 
transubstantiation  is  the  more  natural  meaning.  The  real  pre- 
sence, however,  was  then  professed  by  all  parties.  I  need  not 
speak  of  Gardiner  and  Smythe,  v/ho  went  into  the  extremes  of 
the  Romish  opinions  ;  but  it  was  not  confined  to  them.  Dr. 
Oglethorpe,  in  his  submission  and  profession  of  faith,  a.d.  1550 
(having  been  accused  of  being  opposed  to  the  service-book  and 
the  king's  proceedings),  was  permitted  to  declare,  that  while  he 
rejected  the  doctrine  of  transubstantiation,  he  held  "  that  there 
is  a  certain,  and  an  ineffable  presence  of  Christ's  body  there, 
which  I  can  neither  comprehend  nor  express,"  &c.^  Bishop 
Ridley  protested,  that  in  opposing  the  doctrine  of  the  corporal 
presence,  he  did  not  mean  "  to  remove  that  real  presence  of 
Christ's  body  in  his  supper,  duly  and  lawfully  administered, 
which  is  founded  in  the  word  of  God,  and  illustrated  by  the 
commentaries  of  the  orthodox  fathers."''  Bishop  Poynet  main- 
tained the  doctrine  of  the  real  presence  in  his  book  on  the 
Eucharist,  in  a  very  decided  manner.*^  Bucer  and  Melancthon, 
whom  Cranmer  invited  to  England,  had  always  maintained  the 
real  presence,  as  even  Gardiner  admits.® 

I  shall  not  attempt  to  defend  all  the  doctrine  of  Cranmer,  in 
his  Treatise  on  the  Sacrament,  a.  d.  1550,  and  his  Answer  to 
Gardiner  next  year,  which  in  fact  (though  he  seems  not  to  have 
been  aware  of  it)  amounted  to  a  denial  of  the  real  presence,  and 
is  very  different  from  that  of  Ridley  and   Poynet,  from  the 


»  E.  g.  not  a  physical,  but  a  spiritual  or  sacramental  change,  or  a  change 
by  union  with  the  Divinity,  or  with  the  humanity  of  Christ.  Various  ex- 
planations might  be  given,  which  would  not  infer  transubstantiation,  or  the 
total  cessation  of  the  substance  of  bread. 

b  Burnet,  vol.  ii.  Rec.  p.  290.  .. 

«  Ridlaei  Protestatio,  Enchirid.  Theologicum,  p  53. 

<i  See  Poynet's  Diallacticon. 

"  Cranmer's  Works,  voL  iii.  p.  54,  55.  167, 


472  THE    BRITISH   REFORMATION.  [pART  II. 

Necessary  Doctrine,  the  Homilies,  and  the  Prayer-book  com- 
posed in  1548.  His  belief  in  the  corporal  presence  had  been 
unsettled  by  Ridley,  at  the  end  of  Henry's  reign  ;  but  Peter 
Martyr  and  Alasco,  who  were  in  his  house  for  some  time,  appear, 
in  their  conferences  on  the  matter,  to  have  exercised  an  unhappy 
influence  on  his  too  flexible  mind/  In  his  controversy  with 
Gardiner,  he  assailed  indeed  successfully  the  common  errors 
and  superstitions  on  the  Eucharist ;  but  his  own  positive  opinions 
were  not  in  all  points  orthodox.  However,  it  seems  that  he  was 
misled,  not  by  any  vain  confidence  in  his  own  private  opinion  in 
opposition  to  the  catholic  church,  but  by  certain  passages  from 
the  fathers  which  he  did  not  rightly  understand  ;  and  that  he 
deemed  his  opinion  sincerely  to  be  supported  by  apostolical  tra- 
dition. That  he  did  not  obstinately  adhere  to  it  we  may  reasona- 
bly trust  from  his  appeal  to  a  general  council,  in  which  he  pro- 
tests that  he  did  not  design  to  maintain  his  private  opinion  against 
the  catholic  church,  "  to  which,"  he  adds,  "  my  mind  is  in  all 
things  to  obey. "^  •      ._.•■,. 

The  church  of  England,  however,  was  not  in  the  slightest  de- 
gree committed  to  the  particular  opinions  of  archbishop  Cranmer 
on  this  point.  In  this  controversy  he  wrote  merely  as  a  private 
theologian,  and  not  ex  cathedra,  with  episcopal  authority  ;  and 
I  contend  that  we  have  fully  as  much  right  to  say  that  the  opin- 
ions of  Gardiner,  Tunstall,  and  Simythe,  were  approved  by  the 
church  of  England,  as  that  Cranmer's  were.  They  were  just 
as  much  in  communion  with  the  church  as  Cranmer  himself, 
and  the  latter  even  expressly  disclaims  the  notion  of  Gardiner's 
having  been  deposed  for  his  doctrines  of  transubstantiation. 
Therefore  these  books  of  Cranmer  are  not  to  be  confounded 
with  the  public  and  authorized  doctrine  of  the  church  of 
England. 

The  declaration  on  kneeling  at  the  sacrament,  contained  in 

'  Ibid.  vol.  i.  p.lxxix.  Ixxx.  ••    .   - 

i  Cranmer's  Works,  vol.  iv.  p.  121.  126. 


CHAP.  VII.]  .  VARIATIONS.  4t0 

the  ritual  of  1552,  and  which  is  said  to  convey  the  doctrine  of 
Zuinghus  on  the  eucharist,^  cannot  be  considered  as  a  defini- 
tion of  doctrine  made  by  the  church  of  England  ;  for  indepen- 
dently of  the  uncertainty  as  to  who  really  put  forth  that  decla- 
ration, the  bishops  and  clergy  were  not  then  bound  to  declare 
their  assent  to  every  thing  comprised  in  the  ritual :  they  were 
only  bound  to  perform  the  rites  therein  contained,  of  which 
this  declaration  was  no  part.  Its  intention,  however,  was 
merely  to  prevent  the  worship  of  bread  and  wine  in  the  eucha- 
rist,  which  would  be  decidedly  idolatrous  :  and  to  reject  such  a 
real  presence  of  Christ's  body  as  is  corporal  and  organical, 
since  the  body  of  Clirist  in  its  natural  mode  of  existence  can 
only  be  in  heaven.  This  however  does  not  interfere  with  the 
doctrine  of  the  real  presence  then  universally  confessed,  and 
maintained  by  the  Homihes,  Necessary  Doctrine,  and  Prayer- 
book. 
.  But  it  is  alleged  that  the  church  of  England  must  have  been 
at  this  time  imbued  with  Zuinglian  and  heretical  doctrines, 
because  several  of  that  school  were  invited  to  England  to  reform 
the  church,  such  as  Peter  Martyr,  Ochinus,  and  others,  whose 
opinions,  it  is  said,  had  great  influence  on  the  reformation  then 
proceeding.*         '  '* 

"I  deny  that  these  foreign  theologians  were  invited  to  England 
to  reform  the  church  here.  The  facts  of  the  case  are  these. 
The  emperor  Charles  V.  was,  in  1548,  forcing  the  general 
adoption  of  that  code  of  doctrine  and  discipline,  known  by  the 
name  of  the  "  Interim."  Many  of  the  protestants  of  Germany 
could  not  consent  to  accept  this  formulary,  (imposed  too  by 
merely  temporal  authority,)  and  were  obliged  to  escape  from 
the  emperor's  vengeance.  The  fugitives  took  refuge  in  Eng- 
land as  the  safest  country,  and  archbishop  Cranmer,  with  great 
humanity,  wrote  to  others,  such  as  Alasco,  Melancthon,  and 
Bucer,  offering  them  an  asylum.''     At  the  same  time  he  began 

^  Bossuet,  Variat.  liv.  vii.  s.  82.  '  Bossuet,  Ibid.  s.  81. 

"  Cianmer's  Works,  vol.  i.  p.  334—337. 
VOL.  I. — 60 


474  THE  BRITISH  REFORMATION.  [PART  11. 

t 

to  urge  a  favourite  plan  of  his,  the  composition  of  a  general 
formulary  of  doctrine  for  all  who  favoured  the  Reformation,  in 
which  the  true  doctrine  might  be  explained  without  any  am- 
biguity, and  thus  go  down  to  posterity.  With  this  object  he 
repeatedly  in  1548,  1549,  and  again  in  1552,  entreated  Melanc- 
thon,  Alasco,  Hardenburg,  and  finally  Bullinger  and  Calvin,  to 
meet  and  consult  on  this  formulary,  and  offered  them  a  secure 
place  for  deliberation  in  England.' 

Such  were  the  causes,  and  not  any  general  invitation  to 
reform  the  church  of  England,  which  brought  several  of  the 
foreign  adherents  of  the  Reformation  to  England,  though  their 
chief  leaders  probably  saw  deeper  into  the  differences  between 
them  than  Cranmer,  and  did  not  think  it  advisable  to  enter  on 
fresh  discussions.  Alasco  was  made  superintendent  of  the 
foreign  congregation,  protected  in  the  exercise  of  their  reli- 
gion, in  London.  Bucer  was,  by  Cranmer's  influence,  placed 
in  the  chair  of  divinity  at  Cambridge,  and  Martyr  at  Oxford. 
The  doctrines  of  these  theologians  (especially  the  latter)  at  that 
time  were,  it  must  be  confessed,  of  an  objectionable  character 
with  reference  to  the  eucharist  :  but  I  contend  that  the  church 
of  England  was  not  responsible  for  their  opinions.  Whatever 
influence  these  divines  exercised  was  indirect  and  private, 
through  Cranmer  ;  and  as  I  have  already  shown  that  it  did  not 
produce  the  enactment  of  any  new  doctrine  in  the  church,  so  I 
deny  absolutely  that  the  church  of  England  at  large  can  be 
responsible  for  the  opinion  of  one  of  its  bishops,  and  still  less 
for  those  of  his  private  advisers.  Martyr  was  in  the  chair  of 
divinity  at  Oxford,  and  had  many  opponents  there  :  but  God 
forbid,  that  the  whole  church  of  England  should  be  held  respon- 
sible for  the  heresies  or  errors  of  a  professor  at  one  of  the  uni- 
versities. It  is  often  difiicult  to  censure  or  convict  delinquents 
of  this  kind,  even  though  the  sense  of  the  church  may  be  mani- 
festly against  them. 

1  Cranmer's  Works,  vol.  i.  p.  civ.,  cv. ;  329—349.     Le  Bas'  Cranmer, 
vol.  ii.  p.  78—82.  ..,.•;.■,. 


CHAP.  VII.]  VARIATIONS.  475 

If  it  be  alleged  that  under  the  influence  of  Martyr  and  Bucer, 
some  expressions  in  the  ritual  of  Edward  VI.,  which  conveyed 
the  doctrine  of  the  real  presence,  were  removed  on  its  revision 
in  1552  ;  I  reply,  that  Martyr  and  Bucer  were  merely  desired 
to  give  their  opinions  as  to  the  alterations  expedient,  as  private 
theologians  ;  but  several  alterations  had  been  already  agreed  on, 
and  they  were  not  allowed  to  do  more  than  state  their  senti- 
ments to  those  who  were  in  authority."^  And  the  immediate 
reason  of  the  omissions  referred  to  was,  that  Gardiner,  bishop 
of  Winchester,  and  the  other  maintainers  of  the  Roman  doc- 
trine of  transubstantiation  and  the  corporal  presence,  had  em- 
ployed these  passages  to  persuade  the  people  that  their  doctrine 
was  authoritatively  taught  by  the  church."  These  changes 
by  no  means  implied  the  adoption  of  the  Zuinglian  doctrine  of 
the  merely  figurative  presence  or  real  absence  of  Christ's 
body  ;  and  we  find  no  assertion  of  that  doctrine  in  the  ritual 
thus  altered.  ■  .       \  ...   ■  ■ 

It  appears  then,  that  during  the  reign  of  Edward  VI.  the 
church  made  no  alteration  in  doctrine,  except  in  leaving  the 
mode  of  the  real  presence  in  the  eucharist  undetermined.  It 
is  certain,  indeed,  that  considerable  alterations  in  rites  and 
ceremonies  were  effected,  but  in  this  there  is  not  the  slightest 
proof  of  heretical  variation.  The  removal  of  images  specially 
abused  by  superstitious  or  idolatrous  worship,  was  merely  fol- 
lowing up  the  practice  already  sanctioned  by  the  church  in  the 
preceding  reign.  The  subsequent  removal  of  all  images,  by 
order  of  the  council  in  1548,  was  grounded  on  the  tumults 
and  disorders  which  there  were  at  that  time  about  them ;° 
and  the  church  in  acquiescing  in  this  regulation,  did  so  under 
the  conviction  that  they  were  unnecessary  to  true  piety,  and 
liable  to  the  grossest  abuses.     The  administration  of  the  eucha- 


"  See  Ridley's  Life,  p.  334.     Le  Bas'  Cranmer,  vol.  ii.  p.  73,  74. 
n  Cranmer's  Works  by  Jenkyns,  vol.  iii.  p.  93.  99.    114.  145.   153, 
155.  494. 
o  Burnet,  vol.  ii.  p.  HI,  112. 


476  THE   BRITISH  REFORMATION.  [PART  II. 

rist  in  both  kinds,  (approved  by  the  convocation  of  the  church) 
was  not  inconsistent  with  the  doctrine  of  the  real  presenceP  or 
even  of  concomitance  maintained  by  the  Necessary  Doctrine,^ 
(and  never,  that  I  am  aware,  absokitely  condemned  by  the 
church  of  England  since,  though  not  expressly  taught  in  our 
present  formularies) ;  but  was  founded  on  "  primitive  practice." 
Cranmer  himself  justified  it,  even  admitting  the  doctrine  of 
concomitance.'^  The  permission  of  the  marriage  of  the  clergy 
was  a  mere  change  of  discipline,  and  perfectly  lawful  as  I  shall 
prove  elsewhere  :*  and  the  publication  of  the  ritual  in  the  lan- 
guage of  the  country,  corrected  and  reformed,  must  be  allowed 
by  every  one  to  have  been  most  perfectly  within  the  office  of 
the  church.  As  to  the  abolition  of  various  ceremonies,  such  as 
carrying  candles,  ashes,  palms,  the  paschal  sepulchre,  creeping 
to  the  cross,  oil,  chrism,  &c.  it  was  effected  by  the  church,  not 
on  principles  condemnatory  of  her  former  practice,  but  because 
these  rites  were  abused,  and  the  abuses  could  not  be  removed 
without  removing  their  objects  ;  or  because  they  were  too  nu- 
merous.* These  are  principles  to  which  it  is  impossible  that 
any  Catholic  can  object,  and  of  their  application  the  church  is 
the  proper  judge. 

It  was  on  the  principle  of  removing  things  non-essential 
and  actually  much  abused,  that  the  church  sanctioned  the  re- 
moval of  prayer  for  the  departed  faithful  from  the  public  ser- 
vice, which  had  been  abused  into  a  proof  of  the  doctrine  of 

p  Bossuet,  Variat.  liv.  vii.  s.  93. 

q  Necessary  Doctrine,  p.  265.  The  Lutheran  Confession  of  Wirtem- 
burg,  drawn  up  by  Brentius,  acknowledges  the  doctrine  of  concomitance, 
though  it  insists  on  communion  in  both  kinds.  (Cap.  de  Coen^.)  The 
Articles  of  Smalcald  say  it  may  be  true,  and  yet  hold  that  communion  in 
one  kind  is  unlawful,  as  inconsistent  with  the  divine  institution.  Pars.  iii. 
art.  vi. 

"■  Letter  to  Queen  Mary,  Works,  vol.  i.  p.  377. 

•  Part  VL     Chapter  on  the  celibacy  of  the  clergy. 

V  Preface  to  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer. 


CHAP.  VII.]  VARIATIONS.  477 

Purgatory,  which  slie  rejected."  In  the  same  manner,  she 
removed  Invocation  of  Saints,  as  leading  too  frequently  to 
superstition,  and  even  to  idolatry.''  The  practice  of  private 
confession  to  priests,  and  absolution,  she  never  abolished.  It 
is  said  that  the  form  of  administering  the  eucharist,  drawn  up 
by  eighteen  bishops  and  other  clergy,  in  1547,  left  private 
confession  entirely  to  the  option  of  individuals  :"■"  but  strictly 
speaking,  this  license  related  not  so  much  to  the  practice  of 
confession  in  general,  as  to  the  particular  custom  of  confessing 
before  receiving  the  eucharist.^  That  the  church  did  not  mean 
to  abolish  confession  and  absolution  (which  she  even  regards 
as  a  sort  of  sacrament)^  in  general,  appears  from  the  office  of 
the  eucharist,  and  for  the  visitation  of  the  sick,  then  drawn  up  ; 
and  from  the  powers  conferred  on  priests  in  the  ordination  ser- 
vices.  The  Homilies,  drawn  up  in  1562,  only  declared  this 
confession  and  absolution  not  essential  generally  to  the  pardon 
of  sin,'=  but  this  does  not  militate  against  its  desirableness  and 

u  Bossuet  most  unjustly  attributes  this  to  mere  hostility  to  the  Roman 
church. — Variat.  liv.  vii.  s.  88.  ' 

V  It  is  taught  by  Roman  theologians  that  there  is  no  positive  precept  of 
the  church  to  invoke  the  saints,  the  Council  of  Trent  having  only  pro- 
nounced it  salutary,  not  necessary. — See  Milner,  End  of  Controversy, 
Letter  33,  where  he  refers  in  proof  to  Petavius,  Suarez,  Wallemburg,  Mu- 
ratori,  and  Natalis  Alexander.  Bossuet  admits  that  this  custom  may  be 
abused.  "  Ce  qu'il  y  avoit  a  craindre  pour  les  ignorans,  c'etoit  qu'ils  ne 
fissent  I'invocation  des  saints  trop  semblable  a  celle  de  Jesus  Christ."  The 
Council  of  Trent,  he  says,  endeavoured  to  guard  against  this  danger  by 
their  doctrine  (Variat.  xv.  155)  ;  but  our  churches  acted  more  piously  and 
charitably,  in  removing  a  practice  which  we  knew  by  experience  could 
not  be  generally  purified  from  idolatry,  though  the  better  informed  might 
use  it  without  committing  that  dreadfiil  sin. 

w  Burnet,  vol.  ii.  p.  120.  123.  ^  Ibid.  p.  119. 

y  "  Absolution  is  no  such  sacrament  as  baptism  and  the  communion  are 
.  .  .  but  in  a  general  acceptation  the  name  of  a  sacrament  may  be  attributed 
to  any  thing,  whereby  a  holy  thing  is  signified,"  &c. — Sermon  on  Common 
Prayer  and  Sacraments,  part  i. 

'^  Sermon  of  Repentance,  part  ii. 


478  THE  BRITISH  REFORMATION.       '  [PART  II. 

benefit,  which  the  church  never  denied.^  We  only  disused  the 
canon  "  omnis  utriusques  exus  "  made  by  the  synod  of  Lateran 
in  1215,  and  for  good  reasons  restored  the  practice  of  confes- 
sion to  the  state  it  was  in  previously,  when  it  was  not  enjoined 
at  a  particular  time  every  year.  The  alteration  was  merely  in 
a  matter  of  changeable  discipline. 

It  is  needless  to  dwell  on  the  interruption  to  the  reformation 
of  the  church  of  England  sustained  in  the  reign  of  Mary.  All 
the  religious  acts  made  or  approved  by  this  catholic  church  for 
many  years  previously,  were  at  that  time  assailed  by  the  civil 
power,  and  subverted  without  discussion,  under  the  influence 
of  the  queen,  and  Gardiner  lord  chancellor.  But  as  I  have 
before  observed  on  the  schism  and  nullity  of  all  these  proceed- 
ings, I  shall  pass  without  further  comment  to  the  next  reign. 

The  accession  of  Elizabeth  was  succeeded  by  the  legal 
restoration  of  the  system  of  the  church  of  England,  but  still 
without  any  new  formulary  of  doctrine  till  1562,  when  the 
Convocation  compiled  the  Thirty-nine  Articles.  It  is  alleged 
by  our  opponents,  however,  that  the  church  of  England  having 
been  Zuinglian  in  the  time  of  Edward,  now  veered  towards 
the  Roman  doctrine,  in  proof  of  which  they  allege  the  altera- 
tion of  the  Article  of  1552,  which  had  declared  the  corporal 
presence  impossible,  the  omission  of  the  declaration  concerning 
kneeling  at  the  sacrament,  the  uniting  of  the  forms  of  delivering 
the  eucharist  in  the  first  and  second  books  of  Edward  VI.,  and 
the  omission  of  the  petition  against  the  bishop  of  Rome  on  the 
Litany,  all  which  alterations  are  said  to  have  been  made  with 
the  intention  of  conciliating  the  professors  of  that  very  doctrine 

a  Ibid. — See  Exhortation  in  the  Communion  Office,  and  the  Visitation 
of  the  Sick.  The  National  Synod  of  Ireland,  a.d.  1634,  in  their  64th 
canon  charged  all  ministers  not  to  reveal  offences  entrusted  to  them  in  pri- 
vate confession,  under  pain  of  irregularity.  Private  confession  vi^as  also 
approved  by  the  Lutherans. — See  the  Confession  of  Augsburg,  pars  i.  art, 
xi.  De  Confessione  ;  pars  ii.  art.  iv. ;  Apologia  Confessionis,  vi. ;  Articuli 
Smalcald.  pars  iii.  art.  viii. ;.  and  Luther's  Catechismus  Minor,  where  the 
form  of  confession  and  absolution  is  prescribed. 


CHAP.  VII.]  VARIATIONS.  479 

of  the  corporal  presence  and  transubstantiation,  the  denial  of 
which  had  cost  Cranmer,  Ridley,  and  Latimer  their  lives.'' 

Now  first,  I  have  before  observed  that  the  Articles  of  1553 
were  never  of  any  authority  in  the  church  of  England,  and 
therefore  the  convocation  of  1562,  in  correcting  what  was  there 
said  as  to  the  eucharist,  and  omitting  what  seemed  too  much 
of  mere  human  reasoning  on  the  nature  of  bodies,  did  not  in 
any  degree  change  the  doctrine  of  the  church.  Secondly,  we 
have  no  certain  evidence  of  what  the  motives  of  those  altera- 
tions in  1558  really  were.  Burnet  says  indeed  :  "  It  was  pro- 
posed to  have  the  communion  book  so  contrived,  that  it  might 
not  exclude  the  belief  of  the  corporal  presence  :  for  the  chief 
design  of  the  queen's  council  was  to  unite  the  nation  in  one 
faith,  and  the  greatest  part  of  the  nation  still  continued  to  believe 
such  a  presence. "°  What  the  proof  of  this  is,  I  have  yet  to 
learn ;  and  Burnet  himself,  thirty-three  years  afterwards,  gave 
an  account  of  the  matter,  from  which  it  may  be  suspected  that 
he  drew  on  his  own  imagination  for  the  reasons  assigned  in  the 
above  passage.  "  The  most  material  (difference)  is  the  leaving 
out  of  that  express  declaration  that  was  made  against  the  cor- 
poral presence  of  Christ  in  the  sacrament,  which  I  then  thought 
was  done  in  compliance  with  the  opinion  prevalent  among  the 
people  of  the  popish  persuasion,  who  were  strangely  possessed 
with  the  belief  of  such  a  presence  ;  but  I  am  convinced  by  the 
letter  sent  me  from  Zurich,  that  in  this  great  regard  was  like- 
wise had  to  the  Lutheran  churches,  with  whom  a  conjunction 
was  much  endeavoured  by  some."*^  Blackburn,  the  author  of 
the  Confessional,  observes  with  much  apparent  truth,  that  Bur- 
net in  affirming  that  the  Articles  were  framed  with  the  intention 
of  including  different  opinions,  "  says  a  good  deal  of  this  at 
random,  or  at  least  upon  plausible  conjecture."® 


''  Bossuet,  Variat.  liv.  x.  s.  5 — 10. 

c  Burnet,  vol.  ii.  p.  704.  <•  Burnet,  vol.  iii.  p.  518. 

<=  Confessional,  p.  134,  &c.     Bossuet,  assuming  that  the  Articles  of  the 
church  of  England  were  conceived  in  vague  and  general  terms  in  order  to 


480  THE  BRITISH  REFORMATION.  [PART II. 

I  repeat  it,  that  there  is  no  certain  evidence  of  the  motive  of 
these  changes — that  we  have  only  the  fact.  They  may  have 
been,  very  probably,  designed  to  remove  what  was  deemed  a 
not  altogether  unreasonable  ground  of  offence  to  men  well  dis- 
posed. But  they  may  have  been  made  chiefly  for  their  own 
sake,  on  the  principle  of  not  putting  forward  mere  human  rea- 
sonings, or  any  thing  else  which  might  seem  harsh  in  tone, 
or  be  in  any  way  construed  into  a  doubt  of  the  real  presence. 
That  these  alterations  were  made  on  the  ground  of  their  own 
fitness,  and  not  with  any  direct  intention  of  including  the  opin- 
ions of  either  Romanists  or  Lutherans,  appears  to  me  most 
probable.  The  Romish  party  had  attended  the  w^orship  of  the 
church  in  the  reign  of  Edward  VI.,  when  the  Prayer-book  was 
unaltered  :  why  then  was  it  necessary  to  make  those  alterations 
on  their  account  ?  At  all  events,  whatever  may  have  been  the 
motives  of  the  queen  and  her  council,  we  have  no  proof  that 
they  influenced  the  clergy  who  reviewed  the  Ritual,  or  that 
they  had  any  design  of  comprehending  persons  of  various  doc- 
trines within  the  church.  If  the  queen  had  exercised  any 
influence  over  them,  we  have  reason  to  believe  that  it  would 
have  arisen  from  real  principle,  and  not  from  mere  policy  ;  for 
she  was  well  known  to  be  even  obstinately  attached  to  opinions 

admit  different  doctrines,  remarks  that  such  a  proceeding  amounted  to  a 
betraying  of  the  truth,  Variat.  x.  s.  vi ;  but  he  himself  says  elsewhere  in 
defence  of  the  synod  of  Trent,  to  which  similar  vagueness  of  expression 
is  attributed,  "  qu'il  faut  souvent  dans  les  decisions  de  I'Eglise,  s'en  tenir 
a  des  expressions  gencrales,  pour  demeurer  dans  cette  mesure  de  sagesse 
tant  louee  par  S.  Paul,  et  n'etre  pas  centre  son  precepte  plus  savant  qu'il 
ne  faut." — Variat.  xv.  s.  58.  This  is  really  the  rule  followed  by  our  ca- 
tholic apostolic  churches,  and  not  any  political  and  latitudinarian  principle  of 
comprehending  different  doctrines  concerning  matters  of  faith.  [The  stu- 
dent should  carefully  note  the  difference  between  ambiguous  and  general 
expressions.  The  former,  as  a  source  of  error,  on  the  one  hand,  or  a  tem- 
porizing subterfuge,  on  the  other,  are  either  the  seed  or  growth  of  heresy. 
The  latter  are  its  preventive  and  check,  when  employed  with  a  prudent 
and  catholic  desire  to  entrench  a  definite  truth,  not  carrying  it  out,  but 
leaving  room  for  difference  as  to  the  modus,  or  the  consequences.] 


CHAP.  VII.]  •  VARIATIONS.  4S1 

and  practices,  which  some  of  the  clergy,  who  had  imbibed  a 
partiahty  for  the  disciphne  of  Geneva  or  of  Zurich,  viewed 
'  with  much  annoyance.  I  have  dwelt  on  this  point,  because  the 
motives  of  these  alterations  are  too  often  assumed  as  a  matter 
perfectly  clear  and  indisputable,  and  the  reformation  itself  is 
thus  most  unjustly  enlisted  in  the  service  of  latitudinarian 
principles. 

It  may  be  further  observed  that  Cranmer  and  others  suffered 
simply  for  not  professing  their  belief  in  transubstantiation  and 
the  corporal  presence  as  matters,  of  faith.  Cranmer  might  have 
held  these  to  be  serious  errors,  and  as  such  refused  to  profess 
his  belief  in  them,  without  judging  that  their  supporters  ought 
to  be  excluded  from  all  church  communion.  If  therefore  there 
had  been  an  intention  to  facilitate  the  union  of  those  who  be- 
lieved the  corporal  presence,  there  would  not  have  been  any 
evident  inconsistency  with  the  faith  of  Cranmer  and  his  com- 
panions in  suffering. 

In  1562  the  Convocation  authorized  the  Thirty-nine  Arti- 
cles of  Religion,  the  only  formulary  of  doctrine  established  by 
competent  authority  in  England,  since  the  publication  of  the 
Necessary  Doctrine  in  1543.  It  may  be  well  to  remark  the 
points  of  doctrine  in  which  the  two  formularies  agreed  and  dif- 
fered. Baptism  and  the  eucharist  alone  are  in  the  Articles  ac- , 
counted  "sacraments  of  the  gospel,"''  but  matrimony,  ordina- 
tion, and  other  rites  are  termed  sacraments  in  our  homilies,'^ 
approved  by  the  Articles  ;  so  that  there  is  no  very  marked  dif- 
ference as  to  the  number  of  sacraments  between  the  two  for- 
mularies ;  for  the  Necessary  Doctrine  does  not  pronounce  the 
lesser  sacraments  or  rites  of  the  church  to  be  "  sacraments  of 
the  gospel."  It  seems,  in  fact,  that  the  church  of  England  has 
refrained  from  limiting  the  use  of  the  term  sacrament,"  and  left 

c  Art.  XXV. 

d  Homily  on  Swearing,  part  i.     On  Common  Prayer  and  Sacraments, 

part  i. 

The  Catechism  affirms  that  there  are  only  two  sacraments  generally 

necessary  to  salvation ;  the  ArticlCj  that  there  are  two  sacraments  ordained 
VOL.  I. — 61 


482  THE    BRITISH    REFORMATION.  [PART  II. 

her  theologians  in  this  respect,  to  that  ancient  hberty,  of  which 
the  synod  of  Trent  has  deprived  the  Roman  theologians.  If 
the  Necessary  Doctrine  maintains  a  change  of  substance  in  the 
eucharist,  without  affirming  transubstantiation/  the  Article  in 
denying  transubstantiation  does  not  condemn  absolutely  all 
change  of  substance  in  any  sense,^  but  the  particular  change 


of  Christ  our  Lord  in  the  gospel.  The  object  of  the  church  is  to  secure 
these  two  great  sacraments  in  their  supremacy  of  dignity  and  necessity 
beyond  all  other  rites. 

r  "It  is  a  remarkable  fact,"  says  Mr.  Jenkyns,  in  his  valuable  edition  of 
Cranmer's  works,  "  that  the  several  formularies  of  faith  to  which  he  (Cran- 
mer)  was  a  party  under  Henry  VIII.,  while  they  maintain  most  unequivo- 
cally the  corporal  presence,  yet  all  fall  short  of  any  explicit  assertion  of 
transubstantiation.  Even  the  Necessary  Doctrine,  which  is  justly  consid- 
ered to  be  the  most  favourable  to  the  church  of  Rome,  though  it  teaches 
that  the  bread  and  -yvine  '  do  not  remain  in  their  own  substance,  but  by  vir- 
tue of  Christ's  word  in  the  consecration,  be  changed  and  turned  to  the  very 
substance  of  the  body  and  blood  of  our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ ;'  yet  does  not 
go  the  full  length  of  pronouncing  that  '  after  the  consecration  there  remain- 
eth  no  substance  of  bread  and  wine,  nor  any  other  substance  but  the  sub- 
stance of  Christ.'  And  yet  these  are  the  terms  by  which  it  has  been 
thought  necessary  to  guard  the  Romish  tenet  from  misinterpretation,  and 
in  which  it  had  been  expressed  four  years  before  in  the  noted  Act  of  the 
six  Articles."  This  omission  may  not  unreasonably  be  attributed  to  Cran- 
mer's opposition.  Works  of  Cranmer,  vol.  i.  p.  Ixxv.  Ixxvi.  It  must  be 
admitted,  however,  that  the  more  apparent  meaning  of  the  Necessary  Doc- 
trine implies  a  change  of  substance  in  the  Romish  sense. 

e  E.  g.  if  we  do  not  take  the  term  substance  in  the  scholastic  sense,  as 
distinguished  from  the  accidents,  and  if  the  change  is  not  corporal,  or  in 
any  sense  carnal,  but  mystical,  or  spiritual,  or  moral.  Some  change  of  the 
bread  and  wine  all  orthodox  Christians  allow.  Bishop  Pearson  says  truly, 
that  "  the  ^eT«o-To/5(;s(W/f  of  the  Sacramental  elements  maketh  them  not  to 
cease  to  be  of  the  same  nature  which  before  they  were."— On  the  Creed, 
article  iii.  note  on  Eutychian  heresy.  The  term  substantial  is  used  by 
bishop  Poynet  in  his  Diallacticon,  and  by  bishop  Taylor  (Real  Presence, 
&c.  Oxford  Ed.  1S36,  p.  .521.)  to  express  the  true  presence.*  The  Con- 
fession of  Augsburg  is  said,  both  by  the  Apologia  (art.  iv.  de  Ecclesia,) 

*  [So  by  bishop  Geste :  Againste  the  Prevee  Masse.    (Life,  App.  1. 1840.)  p.  86.] 


CHAP.  VII.]  VARIATIONS.  483 

called  by  the  Romanists  transiibstantiation,  which  supposes  the 
bread  to  cease  to  exist.     The  Article  condemning  "the  sacri- 
fices of  masses,  in  which  it  was  commonly  said  that  Christ  was 
offered  for  the  quick  and  dead,  for  remission  of  pain  or  guilt," 
rightly  censures  that  erroneous  view  of  the  sacrifice,  but  does 
not  declare  against  the   doctrine  of  the  eucharistic   sacrifice 
rightly  understood,^  and  therefore  does  not  differ  from  the  Ne- 
cessary   Doctrine,    which   merely   acknowledges   a  sacrifice. 
There  is  no  difference  between  the  two  formularies  as  to  the 
canon  of  Scripture,  the  Creed,  the  rule  of  faith,  the  fallibility  of 
the  church  of  Rome,  or  of  general  councils,  the  papal  supre- 
macy, and  Purgatory.     They  both  admit  justification  by  faith, 
which  worketh  by  charity.'     The  Article  in  declaring  that  con- 
cupiscence in  the  regenerate  hath  the  nature  of  sin,''  does  not 
affirm  that  it  is  liable  to  the  guilt  and  punishment  of  sin,  if  it 
be  resisted  ;    and  therefore  does  not  really  contradict  the  Ne- 
cessary Doctrine.'      The  Article  containing  the  opinion  that 
works  done  before  the  grace  of  God  have  the  nature  of  sin, 
because  "  they  are  not  done  as  God  hath  willed  and  command- 
ed them  to  be  done,"""  in  order  to  exclude  entirely  the  merit 
of  such  works  ;    is  not  essentially  contradictory  to  the   "  Doc- 
trine," which  declares  that  they  "  be  not  meritorious  nor  availa- 
ble to  the  attaining  of  everlasting  life,  when  they  be  not  done 
in  the  faith  of  Christ,"  and  therefore  be  not  accounted  amongst 
the  good  works  "  recommended  to  a  Christian."" 

and  by  the  papal  confutation  of  it,  (num.  x.)  to  have  taught  the  real  and 
"  substantial "  presence,  which  is  also  affirmed  in  the  Lutheran  Formula 
Concordiae,  pars  i.  art.  vii. 

''  Archbishop  Cranmer  himself  allows  the  eucharist  to  be  a  spiritual  sa- 
crifice.    See  his  works  by  Jenkyns,  vol.  iii.  p.  5.  161.  539.  551. 

'  Article  XL  XIL     Necessary  Doctrine,  p.  221.  223.  368. 

k  Article  IX.  The  synod  of  Trent  (Sess.  v.  de  Peccato  Originali,)  ac- 
knowledges that  concupiscence  is  sometimes  called  sin  by-  the  apostle,  be- 
cause it  is  "  ex  peccato,  et  ad  peccatum  inclinat." 

1  Necessary  Doctrine,  p.  254.  350. 

«•  Art.  XIIL  n  Necessary  Doctrine,  p.  370. 


484  THE   BRITISH    REFORMATION.  [pART  II. 

It  is  true  that  the  Necessary  Doctrine  approves  the  invoc  a 
tion  of  saints  to  pray  for  us, °  and  the  Article  censures  it  as  "  a 
fond  thing,"  and  "  repugnant  to  the  word  of  God;"  and  per- 
haps a  similar  discrepancy  may  be  found  in  the  opinion  of  tran- 
substantiation ;    but,   as   I  have  already   observed,   particular 
churches  are  liable  to  involuntary  error  without  heresy,  and 
may  in  some  points   change  their  opinions  without  heretical 
variation.     Altogether  I  see  not  that  there  is  any  very  great 
contradiction  between  these  two  formularies  in  matters  of  doc- 
trine.    I  dispute  not  that  several  of  those  who  composed  the 
one,  differed  in  some  points  from  several  of  those  that  com- 
posed the  other  ;  but  their  formularies  are  not  so  worded  as  to 
evince  any  great  or  irreconcilable  opposition  between  the  pub- 
lic and  authorized  faith  of  the  church  of  England  in  the  reign 
of  Henry  VIII.,  and  in  that  of  Elizabeth. 

The  church  of  England  is  said  to  have  varied  again,  when, 
in  the  time  of  Charles  II.,  she  readmitted  the  declaration  on 
kneeling  at  the  sacrament,  which  not  only  maintains  the  exis- 
tence of  the  substance  of  bread  and  wine  after  consecration, 
but  denies  the  corporal  presence.  But  there  is  no  inconsis- 
tency ;  for  the  former  assertion  only  amounts  to  a  denial  of 
transubstantiation  already  rejected  by  the  Articles,  and  the  lat- 
ter is  not  opposed  to  the  real,  spiritual,  and  heavenly  presence 
of  Christ's  body. 

This  catholic  and  apostolic  church  has  always  avoided  any 
attempt  to  determine  too  minutely  the  mode  of  the  true  pre- 
sence in  the  holy  eucharist.  Guided  by  Scripture,  she  estab- 
lishes only  those  truths  which  Scripture  reveals,'  and  leaves  the 
subject  in  that  mystery,  with  which  God  for  his  wise  purposes 
has  invested  it.  Her  doctrine  concerning  the  true  presence  ap- 
pears to  be  limited  to  the  following  points  : — 

Taking  as  her  immoveable  foundation  the  words  of  Jesus 
Christ :  "  This  is  my  body  ....  This  is  my  blood,  of  the  new 


0  Necessary  Doctrine,  p.  237.  305. 


CHAP.  VII.]  •  THE  EUCHARIST.  485 

covenant  ;"P  and  "  Whoso  eateth  my  flesh  and  drinkelh  my 
blood  hath  eternal  life  ;  "'^  she  believes  that  the  body  or 
flesh,  and  the  blood  of  Jesus  Christ,  the  Creator  and  Re- 
deemer of  the  world,  both  God  and  man,  united  indivisibly  in 
one  person,'^  are  verily  and  indeed  given  to,  taken,  eaten,  and 
received  by  the  faithful  in  the  Lord's  supper,^  under  the  out- 
ward sign  or  form  of  bread  (and  wine,"^)  which  is,  on  this  ac- 
count, the  "  partaking  or  communion  of  the  body  and  blood  of 
Christ."*^     She  believes  that  the  eucharist  is  not  the  sign  of  an 


p  Matt.  xxvi.  26.  28. 

*•  John  vi.  54.  The  church  of  England  believes  these  expressions  to  re- 
late to  the  eucharist.  "  Then  we  spiritually  eat  the  flesh  of  Christ  and 
drink  his  blood,"  &c.  Exhort,  in  Communion  Office.  "  Grant  us  there- 
fore gracious  Lord,  so  to  eat  the  flesh  of  thy  dear  Son,"  &c. — Prayer  be- 
fore Consecration.  The  term  "  flesh,"  is  only  used  in  this  chapter  of  St. 
John. 

■^  "  Who  although  he  be  God  and  man,  yet  he  is  not  two,  but  one  Christ 
....  one  altogether,  not  by  confusion  of  substance,  but  Ijy  unity  of  per- 
son."— Athan.  Creed. 

'  "  The  body  of  Christ  is  given,  taken,  and  eaten  in  the  supper  .... 
is  received  and  eaten  in  the  supper." — Art.  XXVIII.  "  The  body  and 
blood  of  Christ,  which  are  verily  and  indeed  taken  and  received  by  the 
faithful  in  the  Lord's  supper." — Catechism.  "  The  holy  communion  of  the 
body  and  blood  of  our  Saviour  Christ." — Exhort,  in  Communion  Office. 
"  We  spiritually  eat  the  flesh  of  Christ  and  drink  his  blood." — Ibid.  "  Grant 
us,  therefore,  gracious  Lord,  so  to  eat  the  flesh  of  thy  dear  Son  Jesus 
Christ,  and  to  drink  his  blood,  that  our  sinful  bodies  may  be  made  clean  by 
his  body,"  &c. — Prayer  before  Consecration.  "  Grant  that  we  receiving 
these  thy  creatures  of  bread  and  wine  .  .  .  may  be  partakers  of  his  most 
blessed  body  and  blood." — Consecration.  "  Most  heartdy  thank  thee  for 
that  thou  dost  vouchsafe  to  feed  us  .  .  .  with  the  spiritual  food  of  the  most 
precious  body  and  blood  of  thy  Son  our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ." — Post  Com- 
munion. 

'"  The  outward  sign  or  ybnn." — Catechism.     "Hereafter  shall  follow 
sermons  ...  of  the  due  receiving  of  his  blessed  body  and  blood  under  the 
form  of  bread  and  wine." — Advertisement  at  the  end  of  the  first  book  of 
Homilies. 
"  1  Cor.  X.  16.     Art.  XXVIII. 


» 


486  THE  BRITISH  REFORMATION.  [PART  II. 

absent  body/  and  that  those  who  partake  of  it  receive  not 
merely  the  figure  or  shadow,  or  sign  of  Christ's  body,  but  the 
reahty  itself."^  And  as  Christ's  divine  and  human  natures  are 
inseparably  united,  so  she  believes  that  we  receive  in  the  eucha- 
rist,  not  only  the  flesh  and  blood  of  Christ,  but  Christ  himself, 
both  God  and  man.^ 

Resting  on  these  words,  "  The  bread  which  we  break  is  it 
not  the  communion  of  the  body  of  Christ?"  and  again,  "I 
will  not  drink  henceforth  of  this  fruit  of  the  vine  ; "  she  holds 
that  the  nature  of  the  bread  and  wine  continues  after  consecra- 
tion,y  and  therefore  rejects  transubstantiation,  or  "  the  change 
of  the  substance,"^  which  supposes  the  nature  of  bread  entirely 
to  cease  by  consecration. 

As  a  necessary  consequence  of  the  preceding  truths,  and 
admonished  by  Christ  himself,  "  It  is  the  spirit  that  quicken- 
eth,   the  flesh  profiteth  nothing  :    the  words  that  I  speak  unto 


V  '•  Thus  much  we  must  be  sure  to  hold,  that  in  the  supper  of  the  Lord 
there  is  no  vain  ceremony,  no  bare  sign,  no  untrue  figure  of  a  thing  absent." 
— Horn,  xxvii.  p.  i. 

'^  The  faithful  "  receive  not  only  the  outward  sacrament,  but  the  spiritual 
thing  also  ;  not  the  figure,  but  the  truth  ;  not  the  shadow  only,  but  the 
body." — lb.  Bishop  Poynet  says,  "  Corpus  Christi  et  Veritas  et  figura  est ; 
Veritas  dum  Corpus  Christi  et  sanguis  virtute  Spmtus  Sancti  in  virtute  ip- 
sius  ex  panis  et  vini  substantia  efficitur  ;  figura  vero  est  id  quod  exterius 
sentitur." — Diallacticon,  p.  6. 

I  "  He  hath  given  his  Son  our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  not  only  to  die  for 
us,  but  also  to  be  our  spiritual  food  and  sustenance  in  that  holy  sacrament." 
— Exhortation  in  Communion  Office.  "  In  no  wise  are  they  partakers  of 
Christ:'    Art.  XXIX. 

y  "  The  sacramental  bread  and  wine  remain  still  in  their  very  natural 
substances." — Declaration  at  end  of  Communion  Office.  "  If  the  conse- 
crated bread  or  wine  be  all  spent." — See  Rubric  in  same.  "  The  terrene 
and  eartlily  creatures  which  remain." — Horn,  xxvii.  p.  i.  "  The  bread 
which  we  break,"  &c.— Art.  XXVIII. 

'■  "  Transubstantiation  (or  the  change  of  the  substance  of  bread  and  wine) 
in  the  supper  of  the  Lord,  cannot  be  proved  by  holy  writ ;  but  is  repugnant 
to  the  plain  words  of  Scripture,"  &c. — Art.  XXVIII. 


CHAP.  VII.]  THE  EUCHARIST.  487 

you  they  are  spirit  and  they  are  Ufe  ; "  she  holds  that  the  pre- 
sence (and  therefore  the  eating)  of  Christ's  body  and  blood, 
though  true,  is  altogether  "  heavenly  and  spiritual,"'^  of  a  kind 
which  is  inexplicable  by  any  carnal  or  earthly  experience  or 
imagination  :  even  as  the  Sonship  of  the  Eternal  Word  of  God, 
and  His  incarnation,  and  the  procession  of  the  Holy  Spirit  are 
immeasurable  by  human  understandings. 

Believing  according  to  the  Scriptures,  that  Christ  ascended  in 
his  natural  body  into  heaven,  and  shall  only  come  from  thence 
at  the  end  of  the  world  ;^  she  rejects  for  this  reason,  as  well  as 
the  last,  any  such  real  presence  of  Christ's  body  and  blood  as 
is  "  corporal ""  or  organical,  that  is,  according  to  the  known  and 
earthly  mode  of  existence  of  a  body. 

Resting  on  the  divine  promise,  "  Whoso  eateth  my  flesh  and 
drinketh  my  blood,  hath  eternal  life,"  she  regards  it  as  the  more 
pious  and  probable  opinion,  that  the  wicked,  those  who  are  to- 
tally devoid  of  true  and  living  faith,  do  not  partake  of  the  holy 
flesh  of  Christ  in  the  euchari'st,'^  God  withdrawing  from  them  so 
"  divine  "a  gift,®  and  not  permitting  his  enemies  to  partake  of  it. 
And  hence  she  holds,  that  such  a  faith  is  "  the  means  by  which 
the  body  of  Christ  is  received  and  eaten,"  "  a  necessary  instru- 
ment in  all  these  holy  ceremonies ;"  because  it  is  the  essen- 


a  "  The  body  of  Christ  is  given,  taken  and  eaten  in  the  supper,  only  after 
an  heavenly  and  spiritual  manner." — Art.  XXVIII. 

b  "He  sitteth  on  the  right  hand  of  the  Father,  God  Almighty;  from 
whence  he  shall  come  to  judge  the  quick  and  the  dead." — Athan.  Creed. 

<=  "  No  adoration  is  intended  or  ought  to  be  done  ....  unto  any  corporal 
presence  of  Christ's  natural  flesh  and  blood." — Declar.  after  Commun. 
Office. 

<i  "  The  wicked,  and  such  as  be  void  of  a  lively  faith,  although  they  do 
carnally  and  visibly  press  with  their  teeth  ....  the  sacrament  of  the  body 
and  blood  of  Christ,  yet  in  nowise  are  they  partakers  of  Christ." — Article 
XXIX. 

e  "  Which  being  so  divine  and  comfortable  a  thing  to  tliem  who  receive  it 
worthily." — Exhort,  in  Comm.  Office. 


488  THE   BRITISH  REFORMATION.  '    [PART  II. 

tial  qualification  on  our  parts,  without  which  that  body  is  not 
received.^ 

Following  the  example  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  of  the 
apostles,  and  supported  by  their  authority,  she  believes  that 
"  the  blessing,"^  or  "  consecration  "^  of  the  bread  and  wine  is 
not  without  effect,  but  that  it  operates  a  real  change  :  for  when 
the  sacrament  is  thus  perfected,  she  regards  it  as  so  "  divine  a 
thing,"  so  "  heavenly  a  food,"  that  we  must  not  "presume"  to 
approach  it  with  unprepared  minds,'  and  that  sinners,  although 
they  only  partake  of  the  bread  and  wine,  partake  of  them  to 
their  own  condemnation,  because  they  impiously  disregard  the 
Lord's  body,^  which  is  truly  present  in  that  sacrament.  Hence 
it  is  that  the  church,  believing  firmly  in  the  real  presence  of  the 


*"  Horn,  xxvii.  p.  i.  Art.  XXVIII.  Bossuet  says  that  this  assertion  of 
the  Article  is  certainly  true,  provided  the  reception  be  understood  0^2.  useful 
reception  in  the  sense  of  St.  John  speaking  of  Jesus  Christ ;  "  His  own 
received  him  not,"  though  he  was  in  the  midst  of  them  ;  i.  e.  they  did  not 
receive  his  doctrine  nor  his  grace. — Variat.  x.  sect.  vi. 

2  "  Beginning  at  our  Saviour  Christ,  &c.  for  the  Messing  of  the  bread, 
and  at  'likewise  after  supper,'  &c.  for  the  blessing oi t\\e  cn-^.'''' — Rubric  in 
Com.  Office. 

i>  "The  priest  .  .  .  shall  say  the  prayer  of  consecration.'''' — Rubric  Comm. 
Off.  "  If  the  consecrated  bread  and  wine  be  all  spent  ....  the  priest  is  to 
consecrate  more." — Rubric  Ibid.  "If  any  remain  of  that  which  was  con- 
secrated ....  the  priest  and  such  other,  &c shall  immediately  after 

the  blessing,  reverently  eat  and  drink  the  same." — Rubric  Ibid. 

'  "  Which  being  ....  so  dangerous  to  them  that  will  presume  to  receive 
it  unw^orthily." — Exliort.  in  Conun.  Office.  "  St.  Paul  exhorteth  all  persons 
diligently  to  try  and  examine  themselves,  before  i\\eY  presume  to  eat  of  that 
bread  and  drink  of  that  cup." — Ibid.  "  We  do  not  presume  to  come  to  this 
thy  table,  merciful  Lord,  trusting  in  our  own  righteousness,  but  in  thy  mani- 
fold and  great  mercies." — Prayer  before  Consecration. 

^  "  So  is  the  danger  great  if  we  receive  the  same  unworthily.  For  then 
we  are  guilty  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Clirist  our  Saviour  ;  we  eat  and  drink 
our  own  damnation,  not  considering  the  Lord's  body ;  we  kindle  God's 
wrath  against  us  ;  we  provoke  him  to  plague  us  with  divers  diseases  and 
sundry  kinds  of  death." — Exhort,  in  Comm.  Office. 


CHAP.  VII.]  ANGLO-CATHOLIC  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  EUCHARIST.     489 

"  precious  and  blessed  body  and  blood  of  our  Saviour,  Jesus 
Christ,"!  speaks  of  the  eucharist  as  "high  and  holy  myste- 
ries,"'" exhorts  us  to  consider  the  "  dignity  of  that  holy  mys- 
tery,"" that  "  heavenly  feast,"  that  "  holy  table,"  "  the  ban- 
quet of  that  most  heavenly  food,""  even  "  the  King  of  kings' 
table. "P 

Such  is  the  simple,  the  sublime,  and  what  is  more,  the  true 
and  Scriptural  doctrine  of  our  catholic  and  apostolic  church — a 
doctrine  which  cannot  be  accused  of  heresy  except  from  igno- 
rance or  uncharitableness.  Even  our  adversaries  are  compelled 
sometimes  by  the  force  of  truth  to  clear  the  church  of  England 
from  the  imputation  of  disbelieving  the  sublime  mysteries  of  this 
holy  sacrament,i  and  reducing  it  to  a  common  spiritual  exercise, 


'  Prayer  before  Consecration.     Post  Communion  Prayer. 

"  Exhort.  Coram.  Office.     Horn,  xxvii.  p.  i.  .       , 

"  Ibid.  '  °  Ibid. 

P  Hom.  xxvii.  p.  i. 

1  Milner  is  obliged  to  confess  that  the  g^enuine  doctrine  of  the  church 
of  England  is  that  of  the  real  presence.  He  refers  in  proof  to  the  Gate-* 
chism,  Articles,  Ritual  and  Homilies,  and  to  Ridley,  Nowell,  Bilson,  An- 
drewes,  Morton,  Laud,  Bramhall,  &c.  and  to  Cleaver,  bishop  of  Chester, 
who  says  :  "  The  great  object  of  our  reformers  was,  whilst  they  acknowl- 
edge the  doctrine  of  the  Real  Presence,  to  refute  that  of  Transubstantia- 
tion  ;  as  it -was  afterwards  to  refute  the  notion  of  impanation  or  consubstan- 
tiation,  Sermon,  Nov.  25,  1787." — See  Milner's  Letters  to  a  Prebendary, 
let.  viii.  Hornyhold,  another  of  their  titular  bishops,  admits  that  "  the  doc- 
trine of  the  church  of  England  "  in  the  Catechism,  "  expresses  the  real  and 
substantial  presence  of  Christ's  body  and  blood  in  the  sacrament  as  fully 
as  any  catholic  can  do  ;  for  if  verily  and  indeed  be  not  the  same  as  re- 
ally and  truly,  and  of  as  full  force  to  exclude  a  mere  figurative  presence, 
I  confess  I  am  yet  wholly  ignorant  of  the  signification,  even  of  the  most 
common  words,  and  it  will  be  impossible  to  know  what  men  mean,  even 
when  they  deliver  themselves  in  thef  plainest  terms." — Real  Principles  of 
Catholics,  p.  243.  ed.  1749.  Bossuet  affirms  that  even  the  Declaration 
against  transubstantiation  leaves  the  English  at  liberty  to  "believe  that 
the  body  and  blood  of  Jesus  Christ  are  really  and  substantially  present 
VOL.  I. — 62 


490  THE    BRITISH    REFORMATION.  [PART   II. 

in  which  the  mind  of  the  individual  derives  edification,  and  per- 
haps grace,  from  the  contemplation  and  remembrance  of  an  ab- 
sent Redeemer's  sufferings. 

Our  doctrine  leaves  this  subject  in  the  sacred  mystery  with 
which  God  has  enveloped  it.  It  is  not  to  be  denied  that  the 
Roman  doctrine  of  transubstantiation  facilitates  the  mental  con- 
ception of  that  mystery  :  but  it  has  the  fatal  defect  of  being  op- 
posed to  the  plain  language  of  Scripture  ;  and  if  those  state- 
ments are  to  be  explained  away,  and  reduced  to  merely  figura- 
tive expressions,  according  to  the  doctrine  of  Paschasius  Rad- 
bertus  and  his  school ; ''  the  Berengarians,  Zuinglians,  and  So- 
cinians,  may  with  reason  claim  a  similar  privilege  of  arbitrarily 
explaining  away  into  figures  the  very  passages  in  which  the 
doctrine  of  the  true  presence  itself  is  conveyed. 

The  Roman  doctrine  of  transubstantiation  is  entirely  founded 
on  human  reasoning  from  the  nature  of  bodies,  and  the  supposed 
incompatibility  of  the  Scriptural  statement  that  the  eucharist  is 
bread  and  wine,  literally  understood,  with  the  other  expressions 
of  Scripture.  But  what  Bossuet  has  observed  of  the  philoso- 
phical reasonings  of  the  school  of  Zurich  and  Geneva  against 


in  the  bread  and  in  the  wine  immediately  after  consecration." — Variat. 
xiv.  122. 

*■  The  Roman  doctors  are  grievously  perplexed  by  the  language  of  Scrip- 
ture in  calling  the  eucharist  bread  after  consecration.  Bellarmine  (De 
Euchar.  1.  i.  c.  12.)  mentions  four  solutions  of  the  difficulty.  (1.)  It  is 
called  bread  by  a  trope,  as  having  been  bread,  as  in  Exod.  vii.  the  rods 
turned  into  serpents  are  still  called  rods  ;  Matt.  ii.  the  blind  are  said  to  see, 
&c.  (2.)  Scripture  ordinarily  names  things  according  to  their  appearance, 
e.  g.  angels  appearing  in  the  human  shape  are  called  men ;  oxen,  pome- 
granates, &c.  made  of  brass,  are  called  simply  oxen,  &c.  (3.)  "OpitVne" 
— bread  is  a  Hebrew  phrase  for  any  sort  of  food.  (4.)  It  is  so  called  be- 
cause it  is  a  solid,  principal,  substantial  food.  Of  course  it  is  easy  to  explain 
away  any  terms  of  Scripture,  however  clear ;  but  those  who  arbitrarily 
give  a  figurative  meaning  to  these  terms  of  Scripture,  cannot  oppose  the 
Zuinglians  and  Socinians, 


CHAP.  VII.]  ANGLO-CATHOLIC  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  EUCHARIST.       491 

the  real  presence,  "  que  les  reijevoir  en  matiere  dc  religion, 
c'est  detruire  non  seulement,  le  mystere  de  I'eucharistie,  mais 
tout  d'un  coup  tous  les  mysteres  du  Christianisme,"  is  per- 
fectly applicable  to  those  of  Romanists  for  their  transubstan- 
tiation. 


*  • 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

ON  THE  CHARACTER  AND  CONDUCT  OF  ARCHBISHOP  CRANMER. 

The  opponents  of  the  English  Reformation  have  eagerly  laid 
hold  of  every  imputation,  however  unjust  and  groundless,  against 
the  character  of  archbishop  Cranmer;  and  when  they  have  paint- 
ed it  in  untrue  colours,  we  are  asked  whether  we  can  recognize 
in  such  a  man,  the  instrument  whom  God  would  have  chosen 
to  promulgate  doctrines  of  the  utmost  importance,  hitherto  un- 
known to  the  church.  Now,  we  are  by  no  means  concerned  to 
establish  the  immaculate  sanctity  of  Cranmer,  because  we  do 
not  imagine  that  any  doctrine  which  he  was  instrumental  in  es- 
tablishing in  our  churches  was  novel.  A  prelate  of  learning  and 
respectability  as  he  was,  might,  without  superlative  sanctity, 
have  been  a  very  useful  instrument  in  correcting  abuses,  errors, 
and  superstitions,  by  the  exercise  of  his  ordinary  vocation.  But 
as  these  writers  represent  Cranmer  as  a  monster  of  perjury, 
dissimulation,  ingratitude,  &;c.  in  order  to  excite  prejudice  against 
the  reformation  of  the  church  of  England,  which  he  most  lauda- 
bly promoted,  it  may  be  advisable  briefly  to  notice  and  refute 
some  of  the  more  prominent  charges  against  him. 

I.  It  is  alleged  that  Cranmer  promised  obedience  to  the  Roman 
pontiff  in  the  oath  taken  by  him  at  his  consecration  in  1533, 
though  he  internally  neither  acknowledged  the  spiritual  power 
of  the  pontiff,  nor  intended  to  obey  it ;  and  that  his  protestation 
made  at  the  same  time  was  an  unjustifiable  attempt  to  elude  the 
oath.* 


^  Bossuet,  Variations,  liv.  vii.  sect.  xi.  The  oath  itself  ran  as  follows  : 
"in  Dei  nomine  amen.  (1.)  Ego  Thomas,  electus  Cantuarien',  ab  hachora 
inantea,  fidelis  et  obediens  ero  beato  Petro,  sanctesque  apostolicje  Romanae 


CHAP.  VIII.]  CRANMER.  493 

Now  first,  it  is  certain  that  this  oath  was  taken  by  every 
bishop  in  Europe  with  certain  exceptions,  not  simply  and  abso- 
lutely. Every  English  bishop  on  receiving  his  temporalities 
from  the  crown,  renounced  by  oath  "  all  such  clauses,  words, 
and  sentences"  which  he  had  of  the  pope,  "  that  in  any  wise 
hath  been,  is,  or  hereafter  may  be  hurtful  or  prejudicial  to  the 
king  or  his  royal  dignity  or  privileges.'""  The  learned  canonist 
Van  Espen  (of  the  Roman  communion)  observes,  on  the  articles 


ecclesiae,  ac  domino  nostro  domino  Clementi  Papae  septimo,  suisque  succes- 
soribus  canoniceintrantibus.  (2.)  Non  ero  in  consilioaut  consensu  vel  facto, 
ut  vitam  perdant  aut  membrum,  sen  capiantur,  aut  in  eos  manus  violenter 
quomodolibet  ingerantur,  vel  injuriae  aliquaj  inferantur  quovis  quaesito  colore. 
(3.)  Consilium  vero,  quod  mihi  credituri  sunt  per  se  aut  nuncios  seu  literas, 
ad  eorum  damnum  (me  sciente)  nemini  pandam.  (4.)  Papatum  Romanum 
et  regalia  sancti  Petri,  adjutor  eis  ero  ad  retinendum  et  defendendum  contra 
omnem  hominem.  (5.)  Legatum  Apostolicse  sedis  in  eundo  et  reundo  ho- 
norifice  tractabo,  et  in  suis  necessitatibus  adjuvabo.  (6.)  Jurff,  honores, 
privHegia,  et  auctoritatem  Romanse  Ecclesiae,  domini  nostri  Papae  et  succes- 
sorum  suorum  praedictorum,  conservare  et  defendere,  augere  et  promovere 
curabo.  Nee  ero  in  consilio  vel  tractatu,  in  quibus  contra  ipsum  dominum 
nostrum,  vel  eandem  Romanam  ecclesiam,  aliqua  sinistra  vel  prejudicialia 
personarum,  juris,  honoris,  status,  et  potestatis  eorum  machinentur,  et  si 
talia  a  quibuscunque  procurari  novero  vel  tractari,  impediam  hoc  pro  posse, 
et  quantocius  potero  commode  significabo  eidem  domino  nostro,  vel  alteri 
per  quern  ad  ipsius  notitiam  pervenire  possit.  (7.)  Regulas  sanctorum  pa- 
trum,  decreta,  ordinationes,  sententias,  dispositiones,  reservationes,  provi- 
siones,  et  mandata  apostolica,  totis  viribus  observabo,  et  faciam  ab  aliis 
observari.  Haereticos,  schismaticos,  et  rebelles  domino  nostro  et  succes- 
soribus  praedictis,  pro  posse  persequar  et  impugnabo.  (8.)  Vocatus  ad  Syno- 
dum  veniam,  nisi  praepeditus  fuero  canonica  praepeditione.  (9.)  Apostolorum 
limina,  Romana  curia  existente  citra,  singulis  annis,  ultra  vero  montes,  sin- 
gulis bienniis  visitabo,  aut  per  me  aut  per  meum  nuncium,  nisi  apostolica 
absolvar  licentia.  (10.)  Possessiones  vero  ad  mensam  meam  pertinentes 
non  vendam,  neque  donabo,  nee  impignorabo,  neque  de  novo  iufeudabo,  vel 
aliquo  modo  alienabo,  etiam  cum  consensu  capitalis  Ecclesiae  meaj,  incon- 
sulto  Romano  Pontifice.  Sic  me  Deus,"  &c. — Cranmer's  Works  by  Jen- 
kyns,  vol.  iv.  p.  249. 
''  Burnet,  vol.  i.  p.  226. 


494  THE    BRITISH    REFORMATION.  [PART  II. 

of  the  oath  of  bishops,  that  the  three  first  are  plainly  conforma- 
ble to  those  of  oaths  of  fealty  made  by  vassals  to  their  superior 
lord  ;  that  they  infer  subjection  to  the  pope  not  only  in  spirituals 
but  in  temporals.  In  the  fourth  article  he  shows  that  the  "  regali- 
ties of  St.  Peter"  means  the  temporal  possessions  of  the  Roman 
see.  The  fifth,  eighth,  and  ninth  articles  he  observes,  can  only 
be  executed  by  permission  of  the  prince,  in  France  and  Bel- 
gium ;  and  therefore  they  must  be  taken  only  conditionally. 
Some  of  the  articles,  he  says,  are  so  expressed,  that,  considering 
their  tenor,  and  the  ancient  customs  of  provinces,  it  is  very 
doubtful  v^rhether  bishops  can  fulfil  their  oath  as  regards  them. 
On  one  article  (9)  he  cites  Fleury's  observation  ;  "  In  France 
this  article  is  not  observed."  On  another  article  (7)  he  cites 
Florens,  who  says,  "  this  clause  is  of  the  widest  extent,  nor  does 
our  custom  allow  it  in  many  respects  ;"  and  the  same,  he  adds, 
may  be  without  doubt  affirmed  of  Belgium.  In  fine,  he  remarks, 
that  "  Provisions,  reservations,  and  mandates  apostolical,  are  not 
here  (Belgium)  admitted  generally  and  indiscriminately,  but 
with  certain  limitations,  according  to  the  rights  and  received 
customs  of  churches  :  nor  is  it  to  be  believed  that  the  pontiffs 
would  desire  their  observance  to  be  sworn  to  otherwise  ;  and 
custom  and  the  general  understanding  seem  to  have  explained 
the  oath  in  this  sense,  not  merely  as  regards  this  article,  but  the 
rest  also,  namely,  that  the  things  contained  in  those  articles  he 
observed,  as  far  as  the  rights  and  customs  of  provinces  permit 
them.'''''^ 

It  is  plain  therefore  that  the  oath  contains  many  clauses  which 
require  to  be  understood  with  conditions  and  exceptions  ;  and 
we  are  informed  by  Rechberger,  that  as  "  it  did  not  appear  free 
from  all  danger  to  the  state,"  it  was  ordained  by  the  imperial 
statute  of  Joseph  II.,  emperor  of  Germany,  that  in  the  Austrian 
states  it  should  only  be  taken,  on  condition  that  it  be  understood 
to  relate  simply  to  canonical  obedience.     The  Austrian  bishops 


Van  Espen,  Jus.  Eccl.  Univ.  pars  i.  tit.  xv.  c.  2. 


CHAP.  VIII.]  CRANMER.  .,  495 

also  must  previously  take  a  particular  oath  of  allegiance  and 
fidelity  to  the  emperor  j'^  and  in  Spain  the  oath  to  the  pontiff  is 
always  taken  with  certain  conditions.^  In  fact,  every  other 
bishop  of  the  Roman  communion  must  make  some  mental  ex- 
ceptions, unless  he  means  to  bind  himself  to  absolute  obedience 
to  the  pontiff  in  temporals  as  well  as  spirituals  ;  and  therefore 
Archbishop  Cranmer,  so  far  from  deserving  blame  for  taking  it 
with  certain  qualifications,  merits  approbation  for  making  an 
open  protest  of  the  sense  in  which  he  took  it,  while  others  con- 
tented themselves  with  merely  mental  reservations.  His  pro- 
test was  to  this  effect,  that  he  did  not  mean  to  oblige  ]ii.mself 
by  it,  "  to  say  or  do  any  thing  against  the  law  of  God,  the  king, 
or  state  of  England,  or  the  laws  or  prerogatives  of  the  same  ;" 
or  to  prevent  himself  from  freely  speaking,  consulting,  and  con- 
senting to  all  things  concerning  the  reformation  of  the  Christian 
religion,  government  of  the  church  of  England,  or  prerogatives 
of  the  crown  or  commodity  of  the  state  ;  and  from  reforming 
what  seemed  to  him  ought  to  be  reformed  in  the  church  of 
England.^  It  is  impossible  to  discover  in  this  any  fraud  or 
hypocrisy. 

"  But,"  says  Bossuet,  "  either  this  oath  is  an  illusion,  or  it 
obliges  to  acknowledge  the  spiritual  power  of  the  pope.  The 
new  archbishop  therefore  acknowledged  it,  though  he  did  not 
believe  it."  I  reply  that  he  certainly  did  acknowledge  and 
believe  the  spiritual  power  of  the  pope,  but  only  as  depending 
on  the  grace  and  favour  of  the  king  and  church  of  England  :  not 
otherwise.  He  bound  himself,  according  to  Van  Espen's  inter- 
pretation, to  obey  the  pope  as  far  as  the  rights  and  customs  of 
our  churches  permitted,  that  is,  until  they  should  legitimately 
revive  their  ancient  rights  and  customs,  and  suppress  the  papal 

<3  Rechberger,  Enchiridion  Jur.  Eccl.  Austriac. 

«  Report  from  Select  Committee  on  Roman  Catholic  subjects  (1816),  p, 
313. 

f  Cranmer's  Works,  vol.  iv.  p.  248. 


496  THE  BRITISH  REFORMATION.  [PART  11. 

jurisdiction.  The  oath  would  from  that  time  be  null,  because 
the  condition  supposed  in  it  had  come  to  an  end. 

II.  Bossuet  endeavours  to  fix  on  Cranmer  a  charge  of  the 
most  odious  dissimulation  in  the  following  points. s  His  opinions 
being  Lutheran,  and  therefore  opposed  to  the  mass  and  the 
catholic  doctrines,"  he  carried  his  dissimulation  so  far  that  the 
pontiff  made  him  his  penitentiary,  an  office  which  he  accepted, 
Botwitiistanding  his  Lutheran  opinions.  He  concealed  his  mar- 
riage in  Germany  (which  was  contrary  to  his  promise  and  the 
canons)  from  king  Henry  VIII.  He  accepted  the  papal  bulls 
for  the  see  of  Canterbury  against  his  conscience.  He  per- 
formed mass,  which  he  regarded  as  an  abomination,  during  the 
whole  reign  of  Henry  VIII.,  and  in  ordaining  priests  made  use 
of  the  terms  of  the  Roman  Pontifical,  giving  them  powder  to 
"  change  by  their  holy  benediction  the  bread  and  wine  to  the 
body  and  blood  of  Christ,  and  to  offer  sacrifice  and  say  mass  as 
well  for  the  living  as  the  dead,"  "  Behold  him  then  at  once  a 
Lutheran,  married,  concealing  his  marriage,  archbishop  accord- 
ing to  the  Roman  Pontifical,  submitting  to  the  pope  whose 
power  he  abhorred  in  his  heart,  saying  the  mass  which  he  did 
not  believe,  and  giving  power  to  say  it  ...  a  man  who  prac- 
tised during  so  long  a  time  that  which  he  believed  to  be  the 
height  of  abomination  and  sacrilege."  And  further  :  the  Arti- 
cles devised  by  Henry  VIII.  in  1536,  the  Confession  of  1538, 
and  that  of  1543,  comprised  the  doctrine  of  penance,  the  real 
presence,  transubstantiation,  mass  for  the  dead,  the  seven  sacra- 
ments, the  honouring  of  images,  invocation  of  saints,  adoration 
of  the  cross,  use  of  ceremonies,  &c.  Yet  Cranmer  subscribed 
all  these  articles  which  he  disbelieved  in  his  heart,  and  even 
drew  up  regulations  published  by  Cromwell  for  their  enforce- 
ment, and  himself  aided  in  executing  them  in  every  way. 

Such  is  the  sum  of  the  charges  of  this  kind  advanced  against 
Cranmer,  and  they  would  certainly  suffice  to  blacken  his  cha- 
racter most  effectually,  were  they  not  evidently  founded  on  a 


Bossuet,  Variations,  liv.  vii.  sect.  9,  10, 11.  30.  32.  37,  38,  39. 


CHAP.  VIII.]  CRANMER.  •  497 

misrepresentation  of  his  real  sentiments.     I  shall  notice  them 
in  order. 

Admitting  then,  as  not  impossible,  that  in  1529  or  1530,  he 
was  inclined  in  some  points  to  Lutheran  opinions,  it  remains  to 
be  considered  what  these  opinions  were.  Certainly  Luther 
himself  approved  of  penance,^  therefore  if  Cranmer's  opinions 
agreed  with  his,  he  could  not  have  held  it  wrong  to  accept  the 
office  of  papal  penitentiary,  especially  while  the  pontiff  was 
still  in  communion  with  the  church  of  England,  and  exercised 
ordinary  jurisdiction  here.  With  reference  to  his  marriage  it 
may  be  observed,  that  there  is  no  evidence  that  he  ever  denied 
it ;  and  I  shall  elsewhere  show  that  such  a  marriage  was  law- 
ful, and  that  there  was  no  obligation  to  reveal  it.*  It  is,  besides, 
a  matter  of  dispute  even  among  Roman  theologians,  whether 
the  ol)ligation  of  clerical  celibac^'  be  ex  prcBcepto  ecclesim,  or 
ex  voto  ;  and  Ligorio  declares  that  both  are  probable  opinions, 
and  cites  Mastrius,  Bosco,  Herinx,  Scotus,  Palaus,  Valentia, 
Aversa,  Sanchez,  &c.,  as  allowing  that  clerical  celibacy  is 
probably  not  obligatory  from  any  vowy- 

That  Cranmer  really  maintained  doctrines  in  matters  of  faith 
different  from  the  pontiff  himself,  when  his  bulls  were  for- 
warded to  him  at  the  request  of  king  Henry,  not  his  own,  may 
be  asserted,  but  has  never  yet  been  proved.  The  celebration 
of  mass,^  and  the    offering    of    sacrifice   for   the   living    and 

''  See  the  forms  of  Confession  and  Absolution  in  his  Catechismus  Minor 
(pars  iv.) 

'  Part  VI.  Chapter  on  the  ceUbacy  of  the  Clergy. 

k  A.  M.  De  Ligorio,  Theologia  Moralis,  lib.  vi.  tract  v.  art.  808.  * 

I  The  Lutheran  Confession  of  Augsburg  says  :  "  Our  churches  are  false- 
ly accused  of  abolishing  the  mass,  for  the  mass  is  retained  among  ns  and 
celebrated  with  the  greatest  reverence  ;  and  almost  all  the  accustomed 
ceremonies  are  preserved,  except  that  in  some  parts  German  hymns  are 
intermingled  with  the  Latin  for  the  instruction  of  the  people." — Pars.  ii.  art. 
iii.  The  Apology  of  the  Confession  says:  "  It  must  be  premised  that  we  do 
not  abolish  the  mass,  but  religiously  retain  and  defend  it.  Masses  are  cele- 
brated among  us  on  all  Sundays  aad  other  feasts  in  which  the  sacrament  is 
VOL.  I. — 63 


498  THE    BRITISH    REFORMATION.  '        [PART  11. 

dead,"*  in  a  certain  sense,  need  not  have  been  inconsistent  with  a 
Lutheran's  conscience,  Melancthon  and  the  ministers  of  Wit- 
temburg,  and  the  Lutheran  Universities  of  Leipsic  and  Wittem- 
burg  submitted  in  1549  to  the  Interim,  vi^hich  obhged  them  to 
celebrate  mass  in  the  customary  manner,  and  to  use  all  the 
ceremonies  of  the  church.  They  regarded  these  as  "adiapho- 
ra,"  indifferent  matters.  Further,  it  is  plain  that  Cranmer  did 
not  hold  the  office  of  the  eucharist  as  then  administered  in 
England,  to  be  an  abomination  ;  because,  after  king  Henry's 
death,  when  he  was  at  liberty  to  proceed  in  the  Reformation,  he 
agreed  with  the  other  bishops  and  divines  in  very  nearly  trans- 
lating that  office  into  English  ;  giving  it  the  title  of  "  the  mass," 
and  leaving  in  it  both  a  verbal  oblation  of  the  elements,  and 
prayer  for  the  departed  faithful.  And  so  little  did  this  office 
vary  from  the  essentials  of  that  previously  used,  that  even  Gar- 
diner expressed  his  approbation  of  it  in  his  subsequent  contro- 
versy with  Cranmer."  The  fact  is,  that  Cranmer  was,  in  the 
very  last  years  of  his  life,  induced  to  verge  too  much  towards 
sacramentarian  errors,  by  the  conversation  of  Alasco  and  Peter 
Martyr  :  but  his  opinions  during  the  whole  reign  of  Henry 
VHL  were  widely  diiferent.  In  1 533  he  held  Frith  to  be  a 
heretic  for  doubting  the  corporal  presence  in  the  sacrament  of 
the  altar,°     In  1537  he  held  the  commonly  received  notions  on 

distributed  to  those  who  desire  it,  after  they  have  been  examined  and  re- 
ceived absolution.  And  the  customary  public  ceremonies  arc  preserved, 
the  order  of  lessons,  prayers,  vestments,"  &c. — Art.  xi.  de  Missa. 

m  The  Apology  of  the  Confession  of  Augsburg  admits  that  the  fathers^ 
call  the  Eucharist  a  sacrifice,  which  it  explains  to  be  a  eucharistic  sacri- 
fice ;  and  observes  that  the  term  "  oblation,"  if  understood  of  the  whole 
service,  the  prayers,  and  thanksgivings,  gives  them  no  offence. — Art.  xii. 
de  Missa.  "  We  know  the  ancients  speak  of  prayer  for  the  dead,  which 
we  do  not  prohibit,  but  the  application  of  the  Lord's  Supper  for  the  dead  c\t 
opere  operato  we  reject." — Ibid.  In  the  same  place  the  opinion  of  Aerius 
that  such  prayers  are  useless,  is  given  up. 

"  Cranmer's  Works  by  Jeiikyns,  vol.  iii.  p.  99.  114.  155. 

°  Cranmer's  Works,  vol.  i.  p.  3ti.  .    ;  > 


CHAP.  VIII.]  CRANMER.  499 

the  real  presence,  and  in  his  epistle  to  Vadianus  testified  his 
displeasure   at  the  errors  of    Zuinglius   and  CEcolampadius.P 
In  1538  he  maintained,  in  a  public  disputation  against  Lambert, 
a  Sacramentary,  the  possibility  of  Christ's  body  being  in  several 
places. 1     In  the  same  year  he  expressed  his  opinion  in  a  letter 
to  Cromwell,  that  a  person  who  disputed  "  against  the  opinion 
of    transubstantiation,"    without   denying   the   real   presence, 
taught  the  truth  :''   yet  his   notes  in  a  manuscript  collection, 
prove  that  in  1543  he  was  a  believer  in  the  corporal  presence 
at  least,  if  not  in  transubstantiation.^     It  was  not  till  1546  that 
he  ever  doubted  the  corporal  presence,  when  Ridley's  conver- 
sation first  unsettled  his  opinion.*     In  1548  he  pubhshed  Jus- 
tus Jonas's  Catechism,   containing  apparently  Lutheran  views 
of  the  eucharist,  though  he  afterwards  explained  them  away  ; 
and  in  1551,  in  replying  to  Dr.  Smythe,  he  said,  "  1  confess 
of  myself  that  not  long  before  I  wrote  the  said  catechism,  I 
was  in  the  error  of  the  real  (corporal)  presence,  as  I  was  many 
years  past  in  divers   other   errors,  as  of  transubstantiation,  of 
the  sacrifice  propitiatory  of  the  priests  in  the  mass,  of  pilgrima- 
ges, purgatory,  pardons,  and  many  other  superstitious  errors, 

p  Ibid.  p.  194,  195. — As  to  Luther's  own  opinions  on  the  eucharist,  we 
know  that  while  he  vehemently  maintained  the  substantial  and  corporal 
presence,  he  regarded  transubstantiation  as  a  matter,  which  it  was  of  little 
importance  to  admit  or  deny.     "  Permitto  itaque  qui  volet  utramque  opinio- 
nem  retinere." — De  Captiv.  Babyl.  t.  ii.  fol.  66.     Melancthon  said,  in  1543, 
that  Luther  conceded  the  doctrine  of  transubstantiation  to  some  churches 
of  Italy. — Hospinian,  Hist.  Sacr.  p.  2.  fol.  184.     Luther  continued  the 
elevation  of  the  sacrament  till  1542  or  1543,  when  he  discontinued  it  in 
consequence  of  the  offence  it  gave  to  some  persons  (Gasp.  Peucer,  Hist. 
Phil.  Melancth.  ed.  1.596,  p.  24)  ;  but  in  1544  he  declared  it  was  lawful  as 
a  testimony  of  the  real  and  corporal  presence  (Parva  Conf.  1544,  Hosp.  fol. 
13)  ;  and  in  1545  he  declared  the  sacrament  to  be  adorable — Cont.  xxxii. 
Art.  Lov.  Theolog.  t.  ii.  fol.  503.     He  taught  that  the  body  of  Clrrist  ought 
to  be  adored  and  honoured  in  the  bread,  on  two  other  occasions.     See  Hos- 
pinian, fol.  14. 

<)  Ibid.  p.  Ixxiii.        ■■  Ibid.  p.  257.       '  Ibid.  Ixxiv.        '  Ibid.  Ixxvii. 


500  THE    BRITISH    REFORMATION.  [PART  II, 

.  .  .  but  after  it  had  pleased  God  to  show  unto  me  by  his  holy 
word  a  more  perfect  knowledge  of  his  Son  Jesus  Christ,  from 
time  to  time,  as  I  grew  in  knowledge  of  him,  by  little  and  little, 
I  put  away  my  former  ignorance."*^  Thus  Cranmer  evidently 
believed  the  corporal  presence  during  the  whole  reign  of  Henry 
VIII. ,  and  we  have  seen  that  even  in  Edward  the  Sixth's  time 
he  admitted  an  oblation  or  sacrifice  in  the  eucharist,  and  there- 
fore he  did  not  act  against  his  own  conscience  in  saying  mass  ; 
more  especially  since  he  afterwards  did  not  reject,  but  explained 
the  language  of  the  fathers  in  speaking  of  the  eucharist  as  a 
sacrifice,  by  supposing  rightly  that  they  called  it  so,  chiefly  as 
being  a  commemoration  of  the  one  great  sacrifice  of  Jesus 
Christ  on  the  altar  of  the  cross. ^  This  most  acceptable  spiri- 
tual sacrifice  he  did  not  deny  :  and  therefore  he  might  without 
violating  his  conscience,  both  perform  the  liturgy  and  give  to 
the  priests  whom  he  ordained,  the  power  of  oflfering  sacrifice. 

With  reference  to  the  several  formularies  of  faith  signed  by 
him,  we  have  not  a  shadow  of  proof  that  he  subscribed  to  any 
thing  which  he  reall}^  deemed  unlawful.  The  corporal  presence 
I  have  already  spoken  of.  Transubstantiation,  as  a  word,  is  not 
contained  in  those  formularies,  and  their  doctrine  is  susceptible 
of  another  interpretation.  Confession,  penance,  and  absolution 
are  maintained  by  the  Lutherans  themselves,"^  and  the  use  of 
images,  and  communion  in  one  kind,  were  sometimes  held  by 
Luther  to  be  matters  indifl'erent,  or  even  approved  ;"  as  the 
ceremonies  of  the  church  generally  (including,  of  course,  creep- 
ing to  the  cross)  were  by  Melancthon  and  the  Saxon  divines. 
Therefore  there  is  no  proof  that  Cranmer,  if  he  maintained 
Lutheran  opinions  in  any  point,  acted  against  his  conscience 

«  Ibid.  vol.  iii.  p.  13.  "  Ibid.  p.  5.  161.  539.  551. 

w  Confessio  August,  pars  i.  art.  xii.  De  Pcenitentia ;  Apologia  Confes- 
sionis  vii.  de  nu.  et  usu  Sacramentorum. 

*  Gerdesii  Hist.  Evangelii  Renovati,  vol.  ii.  p.  66.  He  approved  fre- 
quently of  communion  in  one  kind,  though  he  varied  on  the  question. — 
Hospin.  pars  ii.  fol.  12,  13. 


CHAP.  VIII.]  CRANMER.  .  501 

in  subscribing  these  formularies.  Customs  and  ceremonies 
then  approved,  were  afterwards  suppressed,  partly  by  his 
influence  ;  but  he  had  then  considered  more  attentively  the 
abuses  and  evils  connected  with  them,  and  held  it  pious  and 
expedient  to  remove  them. 

I'here  never  was  a  more  futile  or  calumnious  charge,  than 
this  of  imputing  to  Cranmer,  the  profession  or  practice  of 
things  which  he  considered  sinful  or  unchristian.  His  opinions 
changed,  and  we  are  not  bound  to  defend  the  soundness  of  his 
judgment  on  every  particular  point ;  but  his  sincerity  and 
honesty  cannot  fairly  be  questioned. 

III.  The  subjects  on  which  Cranmer's  opinions  have  been 
condemned,  are  the  eucharist,  and  the  powers  of  the  civil 
magistrate  in  connexion  with  the  ministry  and  ordinances  of 
the  church.  Of  the  first  I  have  already  spoken  above,  and  in 
chapter  VI :  with  reference  to  the  latter  it  is  not  to  be  disputed, 
that  Cranmer  did  at  one  time  enlQiidim privately,  opinions  which 
merit  censure.  It  appears  from  his  answer  to  queries  concern- 
ing the  sacraments,  and  the  appointment  and  power  of  bishops 
and  priests,  (1540)  that  he  held  several  strange  errors,  such  as 
that  the  clergy  are  as  much  ministers  under  the  king  as  the 
civil  officers,  that  ordination  is  unnecessary,  that  popular  elec- 
tion or  appointment  by  the  civil  magistrate  confers  a  sufficient 
mission,  that  bishops  and  priests  were  not  two  offices  originally, 
and  that  excommunication  was  not  allowable  if  the  law  of  the 
land  forbade  it.^  These  doctrines,  as  maintained  by  Cranmer, 
seem  certainly  indefensible  :  but  we  may  observe  that  they 
were  only  private  opinions,  not  made  public,  but  merely  given 
in  answer  to  certain  queries  of  the  government.  Secondly,  he 
did  not  hold  them  firmly,  for  he  added,  "  this  is  mine  opinion 
and  sentence  at  this  present,  which  nevertheless  I  do  not  teme- 
rariously  define,"  and  besides,  it  is  fairly  to  be  presumed  that 
he  afterwards  corrected  his  error;  for  in  1543  he  allowed,  in  the 
Necessary  Doctrine,  that  "order  is  a  gift  or  grace  of  ministra- 

y  Cranmer's  Works,  vol.  ii.  p.  101—103. 


602  THE  BRITISH  REFORMATION.  [PART  II. 

tion  in  Christ's  church,  given  by  God  to  Christian  men  by  the 
consecration  and  imposition  of  the  bishop's  hands  upon  them."'' 
His  catechism  (1548),  in  the  article  on  the  keys,  insists  on  the 
Divine  commission,  apostolical  succession,  and  sacred  character 
of  the  priesthood. '^  He  was  instrumental  in  drawing  up  the 
Preface  to  the  Ordinal,  in  which  it  is  declared  that  no  man 
might  ever  exercise  the  office  of  bishop,  priest,  and  deacon, 
without  being  admitted  to  the  same  by  lawful  authority,  with 
imposition  of  hands  ;  and,  therefore,  no  one  shall  be  accounted 
lawfully  ordained  in  this  church,  unless  he  be  episcopally  or- 
dained. It  appears,  therefore,  that  Cranmer  did  not  continue 
to  maintain  these  errors. 

IV.  The  character  of  Cranmer  was  not  naturally  one  of 
much  firmness  or  courage  :  Hooper  said  of  him  in  a  letter, 
that  he  wishes  he  were  not  too  feeble.^  This,  however,  was 
an  infirmity,  not  a  crime  ;  and  if  he  did  fail  sometimes  in  due 
decision,  an  apostle  himself  had  been  still  more  unhappy.  The 
charges  against  him  on  this  head  are,  of  an  unworthy  subser- 
viency to  the  king  in  dissolving  his  marriage  with  Catherine  of 
Arragon,  and  confirming  that  with  Anna  Boleyn  ;  in  afterwards 
annulling  Anna  Boleyn's  marriage,  and  thus  rendering  her  child 
illegitimate ;  in  annulling  the  marriage  with  Anne  of  Cleves. 
He  is  also  accused  of  unjustly  signing  the  death  warrant  of 
Lord  Seymour,  and  of  cowardice  as  regarded  his  recantations. •= 
Now  first,  there  is  not  a  shadow  of  evidence  that  Cranmer  did 
not  act  sincerely,  according  to  his  judgment  of  probabilities, 
in  dissolving  the  marriage  with  Catherine,*^     It  had  been  judged 

I  Necessary  Doctrine,  p.  277. 

a  Cranmer's  Catechism,  (Instruction  of  the  Keys,  p.  193,  &c.)  Oxford  ed. 

b  Burnet,  vol.  iii.  p.  347. 

c  Bossuet,  Variations,  liv.  vii.  sect.  21,  22.  36.  98.  103. 

^  The  dishonesty  imputed  to  Cranmer  by  Bossuet  in  assuming  the  title 
of  Legate  of  the  Apostolic  See  in  the  sentence  of  divorce,  is  a  mere  ca- 
lumny. The  papal  power  was  at  this  moment  legally  established  in  Eng- 
land ;  and  the  sentence  might  have  been  objected  to  as  irregular  and  illegal, 
if  the  usual  and  legal  style  of  the  archbishop  of  Canterbury  had  been 
omitted. 


CHAP.  VIII.]  CRANMER.  503 

null  by  many  universities  abroad  and  at  home,  and  by  the 
bishops  and  convocation  of  England.  Secondly,  the  annulling 
of  Anna  Boleyn's  marriage  cannot  be  imputed  as  a  fault  to 
Cranmer,  for  it  appears  that  the  queen  herself  came  into  court 
where  he  sat  as  judge,  and  in  the  presence  of  several  witnesses, 
confessed  some  just  and  lawful  impediments,*^  on  which  the 
archbishop  was  obliged  to  give  sentence  against  the  marriage. 
It  is  true  that  those  impediments  have  not  in  fact  been  discov- 
ered, the  record  of  the  sentence  being  burnt,  and  this  throws  a 
doubt  on  the  transaction :  but  the  archbishop  may  have  been 
deceived,  and  the  sentence  was  given  by  the  advice  of  persons 
learned  in  the  law.^  The  inconsistency  remarked  between  the 
archbishop's  pronouncing  the  marriage  null  and  void,  and  the 
peers  condemning  her  to  death  as  an  unfaithful  wife  to  Henry,^ 
does  not  throw  any  discredit  on  the  archbishop,  because  the  act 
of  parliament,  which  came  first,  did  not  pi'onounce,  but  only 
supposed  the  validity  of  the  marriage.  Cranmer  is  blamed  for 
not  interceding  more  vigorously  for  Anna  Boleyn's  life,  but  it 
appears,  in  fact,  that  he  was  the  only  person  who  attempted  to 
speak  in  her  favour  to  the  king,^  and  he  doubtless  did  it  in  the 
way  which  he  judged  most  persuasive  to  a  man  of  violent 
temper.  Thirdly,  the  marriage  of  Henry  with  Anne  of  Cleves 
was  pronounced  null  for  certain  causes  assigned,  not  merely  by 
Cranmer,  but  by  the  whole  convocation.  Gardiner,  bishop  of 
Winchester,  was  the  chief  agent  in  this  proceeding,  and  not 
Cranmer,  as  Bossuet  pretends.'  His  signing  the  death  warrant 
of  Lord  Seymour,  condemned  without  hearing  his  cause,  was 
an  act  which  he  should  have  avoided,  from  the  apprehension  of 
scandal ;  but  unless  it  can  be  shown  that  Seymour  was  inno- 
cent, and  that  there  was  not  certain  and  unquestionable  evidence 
against  him,  which  has  not  been  done  ;  the  substantial  injustice 
imputed  to  Cranmer  cannot  be  proved.  His  recantations,  said 
to  have  been  made  more  than  once,  with  a  hope  of  preserving 

«  Burnet,  vol.  i.  p.  370.  '  Soamcs,  Hist.  Ruf.  vol.  ii.  p.  137. 

g  Burnet,  p.  371.  "  Ibid.  p.  364,  &c.  '  Ibid.  p.  508,  509. 


504  THE  BRITISH  REFORMATION.  [PART  II. 

his  life,  are  only  proofs  that  his  natural  firmness  did  not  exceed 
that  of  the  great  majority  of  men  :  even  some  of  the  early 
martyrs  had  exhibited  at  first  a  similar  weakness  :  but  his  last 
hours  shed  a  splendour  on  his  name.  Altogether  it  may  be 
concluded,  that  Cranmer  was  a  man  liable  to  infirmities,  not 
free  from  faults  and  mistakes,  but  altogether  free  from  the 
crimes  which  have  been  attributed  to  him  by  our  adversaries  : 
and  as  we  do  not  view  him  or  any  other  prelates  or  theologians 
of  our  church  at  that  time,  as  its  founders,  though  we  ac- 
knowledge with  gratitude  the  beneficial  reforms  which  their 
learning  and  piety  aided  in  effecting  ;  we  do  not  hold  ourselves 
responsible  for  every  private  opinion  which  some  of  them  have 
entertained,  or.  for  any  particular  act  which  they  performed  as 
individuals. 


P' 


CHAPTER  IX. 

ON    THE    REFORMATION    AND    SCHISM    IN    IRELAND. 

The  churches  of  Ireland  had,  in  the  course  of  four  centuries 
before  the  Reformation,  become  subject  to  the  Roman  see,'' 
which  gradually  usurped  the  patronage  of  the  bishoprics  and 
other  benefices  by  provisions,  and  exacted  oaths  of  allegiance 
from  the  subjects  whom  it  promoted.  The  people  were  im- 
mersed in  barbarism,  ignorance,  and  superstition,  through  the 
anarchy  caused  by  the  wars  and  insurrections  of  a  multitude  of 
rival  septs. 

The  abolition  of  the  papal  power  in  England  by  the  united 
action  of  the  temporal  and  spiritual  powers,  was  speedily,  though 
imperfectly,  imitated  in  Ireland.  In  1537,  the  Irish  parhament 
declared  the  king  supreme  head  of  the  church  of  Ireland,  pro- 
hibited appeals  to  Rome,  suppressed  the  papal  jurisdiction  in 
Ireland,  and  prohibited  all  pecuniary  payments  to  the  Roman 
see.''  The  primate  Cromer  opposed  ineffectually  these  regu- 
lations ;''•  they  were  sustained  by  Brown,  archbishop  of  Dub- 
lin, and  other  prelates,  and  it  seems  that  the  clergy  took  the 
oath  of  regal  supremacy,  and  rejection  of  the  papal  jurisdic- 
tion, prescribed  by  the  act  of  parliament.  The  Irish  princes 
and  lords  also  consented  universally  to  take  this  oath,  and 
made  indentures  to  the  same  effect  with  the  king.'^  In  1538 
images  abused  by  pilgrimages  and  superstitions  were  remov- 
ed,*'  yet  during  the  rest  of  the  reign  of  king  Henry,  it  appears 


a  It  was  only  in  1152  that  the  Roman  pontiff  acquired  ordinary  jurisdic- 
tion over  the  Irish  churches,  when  at  the  Synod  of  Kells,  the  four  arch- 
bishops for  the  first  time  received  palls  from  Rome. 

''  Cox,  History  of  Ireland,  p.  247. 

c  Ibid.  p.  2.56.    Ware's  Bishops  of  Ireland,  edited  by  Harris. 

"  Cox,  p.  253.  273,  274.  •  Ibid.  p.  255. 

VOL.  I. — 64 


506  THE    BRITISH    REFORMATION.  [pART  II. 

that  not  much  was  accomphshed  ;  partly  through  the  intrigues 
of  the  Roman  pontiff  and  his  adherents,  and  partly  on  account 
of  the  disturbed  state  of  Ireland.  Even  in  the  reign  of  Edward 
VI.,  A.D.  1550,  the  adoption  of  the  Enghsh  Ritual,  recommend- 
ed by  a  royal  proclamation,  was  opposed  in  the  assembly  of  the 
clergy  by  the  primate  Dowdal,  who,  with  most  of  his  suffra- 
gans, refused  to  accept  it.'^  Brown,  archbishop  of  Dublin,  and 
other  prelates,  however,  approved  the  Ritual,  and  introduced 
it  into  their  dioceses.^  It  appears,  in  fact,  that  notwithstand- 
ing the  events  which  took  place  in  1537,  the  papal  power  con- 
tinued to  prevail  partially  in  Ireland  during  the  whole  reign  of 
Henry  VIII.  and  Edward  VI.,  for  even  as  late  as  the  year 
1550,  the  crown  occasionally  admitted  to  the  possession  of  their 
temporalities  bishops  who  had  been  provided  with  Irish  sees  at 
Rome.^ 

In  the  reign  of  Mary,  the  chief  prelate  Dowdal,  under  royal 
commission  in  1554,  deprived  and  expelled  from  their  sees  the 
archbishop  of  Dublin  and  three  or  four  other  prelates  favoura- 
ble to  reformation,"  and  six  bishops  were  ordained  in  place  of 
the  prelates  expelled  or  compelled  to  fly.  In  1557  the  parlia- 
ment also  reversed  all  the  acts  made  against  the  authority  of 
the  Roman  see,  which  it  restored  in  its  full  vigour. 


«■  Ibid.  p.  256.     Ware's  Bishops  of  Ireland.  s  Ibid.  p.  289. 

>  Thus,  in  1541,  Owen  Magenis  ordained  bishop  of  Down  and  Conor  by- 
Paul  III.,  was,  on  his  oath  of  allegiance  to  the  king,  restored  to  the  tempo- 
ralities of  that  see  ;  and  in  like  manner  Roland  de  Burgo,  bishop  ofClon- 
fert.  In  1542  Hugh  Ocervalan,  made  bishop  of  Clogher  by  the  Roman 
patriarch,  was  confirmed  by  royal  letters  patent  on  his  going  to  England 
with  Oneal,  prince  of  Tyrone,  who  submitted  to  the  royal  power.  In  1550 
Arthur  Magenise,  made  bishop  of  Dromore  by  the  Roman  patriarch,  was 
confirmed  by  the  king.  There  are  other  similar  instances. — See  Ware's 
History  of  the  Irish  Bishoj  s,  and  Annals. 

'  Cox,  History  of  Ireland,  p.  299,  Ware's  Bishops.  Staples  of  Meath, 
Brown  of  Dublin,  Lancaster  of  Kildare,  Travers  of  Leighlin,  were  depriv- 
ed. Bale  of  Ossory  and  Casy  of  Limerick  fled.  and_ others  were  put  in 
their  place  irregularly. 


CHAP.  IX.]        REFORMATION  IN  IRELAND.  •  507 

In  the  reign  of  Elizabeth  the  emancipation  of  the  church  of 
Ireland  from  the  Roman  usurpation  was  finally  accomplished, 
yet  not  without  the  accompanying  calamity  of  a  schism  which 
has  continued  ever  since.  Few  parts  of  history  have  been 
more  misrepresented  than  that  whij^i  concerns  the  catholic 
church  of  Ireland,  and  the  schism  there  in  the  reign  of  Eliza- 
beth. It  is  too  often  asserted,  without  contradiction,  that  re- 
hgion  was  changed  at  that  time  by  merely  secular  and  parlia- 
mentary power  ;  that  the  catholic  bishops  and  clergy  were  ex- 
pelled from  their  places,  and  supplanted  by  ministers  sent  from 
England  to  propagate  their  opinions  by  force. 

The  ecclesiastical  regulations  made  at  this  time  consisted  in 
the  rejection  of  the  papal  jurisdiction,  the  acknowledgment  of 
the  regal  power  in  ecclesiastical  affairs,  and  the  adoption  of 
the  English  instead  of  the  Roman  Ritual.^  I  have  elsewhere 
proved  (see  Chapters  II.  and  III.,  and  Origines  LiturgiczE,  vol. 
ii.  p.  1,  &c.)  that  these  regulations  were  in  themselves  legitimate, 
and  consistent  with  catholic  principles  ;  we  are  then  only  to  con- 
sider whether  they  were  now  made  by  a  competent  authority. 

The  earl  of  Sussex  was  sent  by  the  queen  in  1560,  to  pro- 
mote the  adoption  of  these  measures  in  the  Irish  parliament, 
and  also  to  convene  a  general  assembly  of  the  clergy  and  se- 
cure their  sanction.^  In  the  parliament  which  met  and  enacted 
these  regulations,  nineteen  prelates  were  present,  of  whom  only 
two  were  opposed  to  their  adoption."'     At  this  time  we  know 


k  The  church  of  Ireland  does  not  seem  to  have  enacted  any  new  formu- 
lary of  doctrine  during  the  whole  of  the  sixteenth  century.  It  was  not  till 
1615  that  tlie  Synod  of  Ireland  authorized  101  Articles,  which  in  most  points 
followed  closely  the  doctrine  of  St.  Augustine.  The  XXXIX.  Articles  of 
the  Synod  of  London,  1562,  though  always  esteemed  orthodox  in  Ireland, 
were  not  formally  accepted  by  the  catholic  church  there  till  the  year  1634 ; 
since  which  time  they  have  been  used  as  the  standard  of  doctrine,  in  pre- 
ference to  the  Articles  of  1615. 

'  Ware's  Annals  of  Ireland,  anno  1560. 

n>  Leland's  Ireland,  book  iv.  chapter  i. 


508  THE    BRITISH    REFORMATION.  [PART  11. 

that  not  more  than  twenty-six  bishops  were  hving  in  the  Irish 
church,  probably  not  so  many."  Thus  a  great  majority  of  the 
whole  synod  of  Irish  bishops  assented  to  the  measures  in  par- 
hament,  and  the  assembly  of  the  clergy  offered  no  opposition. 
So  that  it  is  evident  that  the  reformation  of  the  church  of  Ire- 
land was  not  effected  merely  by  secular  authority,  in  contradic- 
tion to  that  of  the  church  itself. 

With  regard  to  the  deprivation  and  expulsion  of  the  bishops 
at  the  Reformation,  so  assiduously  and  impudently  asserted, 
we  have  merely  to  state  these  facts.  Five  bishops  favourable 
to  reformation  had  been  expelled  irregularly  by  royal  commis- 
sions in  the.  time  of  queen  Mary  :  two  only,  out  of  the  whole 
number  of  Irish  bishops,  were  expelled  from  their  sees  in  the 
reign  of  Elizabeth,  in  consequence  of  their  opposition  to  the 
measures  approved  by  the  rest ;  and  it  is  to  be  observed,  that 
these  two  bishops  had  both  intruded  into  their  sees  ;  the  legiti- 
mate pastors  being  still  alive,  and  deprived  not  by  a  synod,  but 
by  a  single  bishop,  which  was  altogether  contrary  to  the  ca- 
nons." Therefore  these  two  bishops  were  justly  expelled;  and 
the  remainder  of  the  synod  of  Irish  bishops  remained  (either 
by  right  or  tacit  dispensation)  in  the  possession  of  their  sees 
and  jurisdictions.  The  inferior  clergy  also  generally  concurred, 
and  the  laity  everywhere  continued  subject  to  their  pastors, 
and  did  not  cease  to  attend  the  sacred  offices. p  It  is  true,  how- 
ever, that  this  unity  was  more  apparent  than  real  or  firm,  be- 
cause among  the  clergy  were  some  who  conformed,  in  the  hope 
that  some  favourable  circumstances  might  arise  for  the  restora- 
tion of  the  papal  authority.     And  besides  this,  the  want  of  in- 


n  According  to  Sir  James  Ware  there  were  twenty-nine  bishoprics  in 
Ireland  at  the  beginning  of  Elizabeth's  reign.  Two  of  these,  Clonfert  and 
Elphin,  were  held  in  commendam  by  Rowland  de  Burgo.  Armagh  was 
vacant,  and  Skiddy,  bishop  elect  of  Cork,  was  not  yet  consecrated.  Of 
some  sees  we  know  not  whether  they  were  then  filled  or  not. 

o  See  above,  Chapter  IV.  p.  441. 

p  Carte's  Life  of  Ormond,  vol.  i.  p.  33.    Phelan's  Remains,  vol.  ii.  p.  166. 


CHAP.  IX.]        REFORMATION  IN  IRELAND.  509 

formation  and  the  credulity  of  the  people  rendered  them  too 
accessible  to  the  arts  by  which  they  were  ere  long  assailed. 

The  court  of  Rome,  ever  inflexible  in  the  maintenance  and 
augmentation  of  its  power,  could  not  permit  the  church  of  Ire- 
land to  pass  from  under  its  dominion  and  resume  its  ancient 
rights,  without  offering  the  strongest  opposition.  It  was  neces- 
sary to  excite  a  schism  in  this  church.  The  first  effect  of  the 
intrigues  of  Rome  is  seen  in  the  fact  of  the  presence  of  three 
bishops  assuming  Irish  titles  at  the  Synod  of  Trent,  a.d.  1563, 
within  four  years  after  the  abolition  of  the  papal  jurisdiction  in 
Ireland  :'^  but  it  seems  that  they  were  mere  creatures  of  the 
pope,  on  whom  he  had  conferred  the  titles  of  those  sees  very 
recently.''  One  at  least  of  these  men  went  afterwards  to  Ire- 
land, and  was  in  schism  with  the  rest  of  the  church,  endeavour- 
ing vainly  to  introduce  the  regulations  of  the  Synod  of  Trent, 
which  the  church  of  Ireland  never  received. 

I  have  already  spoken  of  the  superstition  and  ignorance  of 
the  people,  which  rendered  them  so  peculiarly  open  to  decep- 
tion and  fraud.  This  appears  from  the  language  of  a  Romish 
author  who  lived  early  in  the  following  century,  and  who,  in 
describing  the  danger  to  which  the  people  were  exposed,  of  re- 
maining in  communion  with  the  church  of  Ireland,  says,  "  Some 
indeed  were  so  devoid  of  information  in  the  faith,  that  they 
knew  not  what  to  maintain  or  to  say,  except  that  they  firmly 
believed  whatever  the  catholic   Roman  church  believed,  that 


•I  Roth,  titular  bishop  of  Ossory,  in  speaking  of  Thomas  Hierlacius, 
bishop  of  Ross,  says  :  "  Quia  in  Synodo  Tridentina  cum  ahis  duobus  Hiber- 
niae  episcopis  Donaldo  Magonail  Ep.  Rapoten.  et  Eugenio  Oliairt  Ep. 
Agaden.  ipse  tertius  nee  infimus  eorum  interesset,  praecipuo  quodam  studio 
et  solicitudine  conabatur  decreta  ejus  et  disciplinam  observare  et  per  totum 
districtum  suae  jurisdictionis  -propagate." — Analecta,  pars  iii.  p.  72.  See 
also  OsuUevan,  Hist.  Cath.  p.  92. 

■■  Ohairt  was  named  bishop  of  Achonry  by  the  Roman  bishop  during  the 
time  of  the  Council  of  Trent. — See  Ware's  Bishops  of  Ireland,  edited  by 
Harris. 


510  THE   BRITISH    REFORMATION.  fPART  II. 

she  had  the  true  cathohc  doctrine,  and  the  Enghsh  were  wrong 

in  faith In  this  extreme  darkness  and  ignorance  it  is 

not  to  be  doubted  that  the  Irish  avoided,  ridiculed,  and  contemn- 
ed the  Enghsh  preachers  by  Divine  inspiration  ;  and  rejected 
their  errors  by  a  sort  of  hidden  and  secret  hght  of  faith."^  This 
is  to  be  understood  as  a  description  of  the  feehngs  and  conduct 
of  the  Romish  party  rather  at  the  lime  when  this  author  wrote 
(1621,)  than  at  the  beginning  of  Ehzabeth's  reign,  when  these 
angry  feehngs  were  yet  undeveloped  ;  but  it  affords  ample 
proof  of  the  ignorance  of  the  people  even  then,  who  were  thus 
unhappily  hable  to  the  impositions  of  popish  emissaries. 

To  a  people  thus  ignorant  and  predisposed  to  superstition,  the 
Romish  missionaries  who  came  from  abroad  to  pervert  them 
from  the  church,  addressed  themselves.  They  declaimed  against 
the  church  of  Ireland  as  infected  with  heresy  and  schism,  vehe- 
mently exhorted  the  people  to  forsake  its  communion,  and  as 
their  hearers  could  not  comprehend  other  arguments,  worked  on 
their  fears  and  superstitions  by  innumerable  lying  miracles, 
wonders,  and  visions.  Of  the  species  of  arguments  used  to 
deceive  this  hapless  people,  we  find  abundant  examples  in  the 
pages  of  Osullevan,  and  Roth,  pseudo-bishop  of  Ossory,  which 
are  loaded  with  fabulous  miracles.  For  example,  St,  Columb- 
kill  takes  the  form  of  a  wolf,  and  carries  a  torch  into  the  maga- 
zine of  a  garrison  of  English  '  heretics,'  who  are  in  consequence 
destroyed.  A  '  heretic '  converts  a  priest's  robe  into  a  nether 
garment,  but  as  soon  as  he  draws  it  on,  he  takes  fire  and  is  con- 
sumed on  the  spot.  A  popish  bishop,  condemned  for  high 
treason,  summons  his  judge  to  appear  before  a  higher  tribunal 
in  a  certain  number  of  days,  on  which  the  latter  accordingly 
dies  in  torments.  A  governor,  particularly  obnoxious  to  the 
Romish  party,  is  heard  conversing  with  the  devil,  and  imme- 
diately an  explosion  is  heard,  and  he  is  found  frightfully  dis- 
torted and  dies  raging  mad. 


^  Osullevan,  Hist.  Catholic,  Iberniae,  p.  109. 


CHAP.  IX.]  ROMISH    SCHISM    IN    IRELAND.  511 

•  As  an  instance  of  the  course  pursued  by  the  Romish  emis- 
saries in  their  labours  to  create  a  schism,  and  estabUsh  their 
new  church  in  Ireland,  I  shall  relate  a  portion  of  the  history  of 
Richard  Creagh,  who  is  styled  by  Roth  "  the  renowned  cham- 
pion of  the  catholic  faith,  and  the  principal  propagator  or 
RESTORER  of  the  samc  in  his  native  land."*  He  was  the  son  of 
a  merchant  at  Limerick,  whence  he  went  to  the  university  of 
Louvain,  and  obtained  the  degree  of  Master  of  Arts,  and  ulti- 
mately that  of  Bachelor  in  Theology.  "  Having  received  this 
degree,"  says  Roth,  "  he  deemed  it  his  duty  to  return  to  his 
country  now  overgrown  with  weeds  and  brambles,  through  the 
schism  and  heresy  springing  up  again  under  queen  Elizabeth 
(her  catholic  sister  being  now  dead).  He  grieved  at  the  errors 
every  where  disseminated  in  that  kingdom,  especially  in  his 
native  city  (Limerick),  which  he  earnestly  desired  to  reform,  and 
also  to  sow  better  seed.  He  laboured  strenuously  by  private 
exhortation,  public  preaching,  and  performing  the  sacred  offices 
of  the  priesthood,  (for  he  had  returned  from  abroad  invested  with 
the  character  of  priest,  to  lend  greater  efficacy  to  his  work). 
He  discoursed  very  earnestly  on  the  impiety  of  taking  the  oath 
of  ecclesiastical  supremacy  arrogated  by  the  queen,  and  the 
unlawfulness  of  frequenting  and  communicating  in  the  schis- 
7natical  (i.  e.  church)  service ;  and  he  withdrew  many  from  their 
nefarious  use  and  connexion. ^^"^  With  the  same  objects  he  taught 
a  school :  "  With  all  possible  zeal  and  solicitude  he  applied 
himself  to  the  instruction  of  youth,  in  order  that  he  might  mould 
the  tender  clay  in  the  orthodox  faith."^ 

Thus  it  appears  that  the  people  were  induced  to  forsake  the 


t  "  Magnus  hie  et  clarus  ecclesiae  Hiberniae  hierarcha  praclarus  erat  fidei 
Catholicae  pugil  et  prlmarius  ejusdem  vel  propagator  vel  restaurator  in  suo 
natali  solo." — Roth,  Analecta,  iii.  p.  1. 

u  "  De  impia  nuncupatione  juramenti  primatus  ecclesiastici  a  regina  arro- 
gati,  de  illicita  frequentatione  et  communications  in  officio  schismatico  pres- 
sius  agebat,  et  plurimos  avocabat  a  nefario  utriusque  usu  et  nexu." — Ibid.  p.  7. 
'  Ibid.  p.  9. 


512  THE   BRITISH    REFORMATION.  [PART  II,  ' 

communion  of  their  legitimate  pastors,  by  those  foreign  emissa- 
ries, who  came  at  the  pope's  instigation,  to  found  a  new  sect  in 
Ireland.  But,  to  proceed.  After  exciting  a  schism  at  Limerick 
he  went  to  Rome,  when  the  pope,  Pius  V.  esteeming  him  a 
proper  subject,  consecrated  him  archbishop  of  Armagh  ;  that 
see  being  already  filled  by  the  legitimate  primate  Loftus,  who 
had  been  canonically  consecrated  in  Ireland.  He  was  now  to 
intrude  into  the  jurisdiction  of  this  prelate,  to  excite,  if  possible, 
a  schism  in  the  church,  and  erect  rival  altars  and  a  rival  priest- 
hood. As  Roth  says,  "therefore  being  sent  from  Rome,  he  came 
aided  by  the  most  liberal  munificence  of  pope  Pius,  in  order  that 
he  might  withdraw  his  sheep  in  Ireland  from  the  jaws  of  7nost 
savage  wolves  and  of  the  lioness,  (i.  e.  their  legitimate  pastors,) 
and  preside  over  them  zealously  and  piously.""^  Thus  furnished 
with  authority  and  money  by  the  pope,  he  endeavoured  to  per- 
vert the  people  and  excite  a  schism,  in  which  he  was  not  alto- 
gether unsuccessful.  Shortly  afterwards  the  Roman  pontiff 
ordained  Maurice  Gibbon  to  the  see  of  Cashel,  who  had  the 
audacity  to  demand  from  the  legitimate  metropolitan  Maccagh- 
well,  a  surrender  of  his  office  ;  and  on  his  refusal  to  do  so, 
wounded,  and  attempted  to  assassinate  him  with  a  spear,  for 
which  he  was  obliged  to  escape  to  Spain.'' 

These  proceedings,  however,  did  not  sufficiently  advance  the 
schism  in  Ireland.  The  people  still  too  generally  continued 
subject  to  their  pastors,  notwithstanding  the  efforts  of  the  Romish 
emissaries,  some  of  whom  also  themselves  repented  of  their 
sinful  undertaking  and  united  themselves  to  the  church.  Thus 
the  schismatic  bishop  of  Clogher  was  reconciled  to  the  church 
in  the  time  of  Richard  Creagh  mentioned  above,  and  is  said 
ineffectually  to  have  exhorted  the  latter  to  conform  also.y  Miler 
Magrath,  made  bishop  of  Down  by  the  pope,  also  repented,  and 


w  "  Roma  itaque  missus  venit  non  sine  liberalissima  Pii  Pont.  Max.  mu- 
nificentia,  ut  et  oves  suas  in  Hybernia  e  truculentissimorum  luporum  ac 
IccEna;  faucibus  everteret,  atque  eis  officiose  ac  pie  prajesset."  p.  22. 

f  Ware's  Abps.  of  Cashel.  ''  Roth,  Analecta,  iii.  p.  36. 


CHAP.  IX.]  CONDUCT    OF   IRISH    SCHISMATICS.  513 

having  embraced  catholic  unity,  was  elevated  to  the  see  of 
Clogher  by  the  royal  favour."^  Peter  Poer,  pseudo'bishop  of 
Ferns,  follow^ed  his  example,  but  whether  from  want  of  prefer- 
ment or  from  natural  instability  relapsed  again.-''  The  civil  go- 
vernment steadily  set  itself  against  the  Romish  schism,  and  there 
was  extreme  danger  of  the  total  overthrow  of  that  party.  We 
find  this  to  have  been  frequently  their  apprehension  during  the 
reign  of  Elizabeth.  Hence  it  was  necessary  to  employ  new 
methods  of  withdrawing  the  people  from  their  legitimate  pastors. 

The  Irish  princes  and  lords,  who  exercised  a  great  power 
over  their  retainers,  and  who  were  always  jealous  of  the  royal 
prerogative,  and  even  aimed  at  independent  sovereignty,  were 
stimulated  to  break  into  insurrection  on  pretence  of  maintaining 
the  rights  of  religion  ;  and  the  people  were  excited  to  hate  and 
persecute  the  church  of  Ireland,  as  being  the  religious  system 
supported  by  the  English  government.  The  chieftains  them- 
selves were  encouraged  by  aid  of  all  kinds  from  the  pope  and 
the  king  of  Spain,  at  that  time  the  most  powerful  monarch  in 
Europe  ;  and  the  consequence  was,  that  the  reign  of  Elizabeth 
in  Ireland  was  marked  by  a  series  of  savage  insurrections,  under 
pretence  of  sustaining  the  (so-called)  catholic  cause. 

In  the  insurrections  under  Jaimus  Geraldinus  and  Desmond, 
Odonel,  and  Oneal  of  Tyrone,  religion  was  the  avowed  object, 
and  the  bishops  and  priests  of  the  Romish  schism  the  chief 
political  agents.  We  are  about  to  review  scenes  in  which  these 
ministers  of  religion,  who  pretended  to  peculiar  sanctity  and 
piety,  and  who  styled  their  opponents  wolves,  heretics,  and  anti- 
christs, were  guilty  of  almost  incredible  enormities.  We  behold 
professed  ministers  of  Christ,  plotting  against  the  dominion  of 
their  lawful  sovereign,  exciting  and  stimulating  all  whom  they 
can  influence  to  war  against  the  royal  authority,  heading  bands 
of  insurgents,  and  issuing  orders  for  the  massacre  in  cold  blood 
of  all  prisoners  taken  from  the  royal  armies. 

I  Ware's  Bishops  of  Clogher.  *  Roth,  Analecta,  ill.  p.  61. 

VOL.  I. — 65 


514  THE  BRITISH    REFORMATION.  [PART  II. 

Queen  Elizabeth  had  been  excommunicated  and  declared  an 
heretic  by  pope  Pius  V.  in  1569,  who  absolved  her  subjects 
from  their  allegiance,  and  forbad  them  on  pain  of  anathema  to 
obey  her  in  any  respect,  while  he  conferred  her  dominions  on 
the  king  of  Spain. ^  Gregory  XIII. ,  in  1570,  relaxed  the  obli- 
gation of  this  bull  for  the  present  to  his  own  adherents,  until  a 
fitting  time  for  its  execution  should  arrive.  About  1575,  Jaimus 
Geraldine  of  Desmond  plotting  an  insurrection,  went  (as  we  are 
informed  by  the  Romish  author  Osullevan)  to  Spain,  "  related 
to  Philip  II.  the  catholic  king,  the  state  of  affairs  in  Ireland,  and 
sought  aid  from  him  for  the  'catholics.'  "  He  then  proceeded 
to  Rome,  "  where  at  that  time  was  Cornelius  Omelrian,  a  Fran- 
ciscan, an  Irishman,  and  bishop  of  Killaloe,  and  Thomas  Stukely, 
who  sought  aid  from  the  pope  against  the  English  in  the  name 
of  the  Irish."'^  There  also  vv^as  Dr.  Sanders,  that  calumnious 
Jesuit,"^  (the  glory  of  the  English  nation  as  Osullevan  calls  him). 
Jaimus  solicited  the  pope,  Gregory  XIII. ,  to  aid  the  catholic 
church,  then  nearly  falling  in  Ireland  ;  and  the  result  was, 
that  "  his  holiness  "  granted  a  pardon  to  all  the  hands  of  robbers 
who  then  infested  Italy,  on  condition  that  they  should  undertake 
this  expedition  to  Ireland  for  the  exaltation  of  the  see  of  Rome. 
Of  the  army  thus  composed,  the  pontiff  made  Hercules  Pisanus 
general  ;  and  the  bishop  Omelrian,  together  with  the  Jesuit  San- 
ders, placed  themselves  at  the  head  of  these  bands  of  robbers, 
by  whose  aid  they  expected  to  establish  their  sect  in  Ireland.^ 

b  According  to  the  Romish  historian  Osullevan,  Elizabeth  was  justly- 
declared  a  heretic  by  Pius  V.  on  V.  Kal.  Mar.  1569,  and  others  were  em- 
powered to  take  away  her  kingdom.  "  Hinc,"  he  proceeds,  "  a  multis  Ibernis 
saepe  capiuntur  armapro  religionis  jure :  omnia  ferro  etflammadevastantur 
et  corrumpuntur." — Hist.  Cath.  p.  70. 

c  Osullevan,  Hist.  Cath.  p.  94. 

d  See  the  falsehoods  of  his  history  detected  by  Burnet,  History  of  the 
Reformation. 

e  "  Eo  tempore  nonnulli  latronum  manipuli  Italiam  non  parum  infestabant, 
dum  ex  sylvis  et  montibus,  in  quibus  latebant,  erumpentes,  nocturnis  rapinis, 
et  incursionibus  pagos  diripiebant,  et  itinera  obsidentes  viatores  spoliabant. 


CHAP.  IX.]  CONDUCT    OF    IRISH    SCHISMATICS.  515 

They  landed  after  various  difficulties,  with  4000  stand  of  arms, 
supplied  by  the  king  of  Spain  to  arm  the  adherents  whom  they 
hoped  to  find  in  Ireland.  They  brought  over  a  bull  from  Gre- 
gory XIII.,  in  which  all  who  should  join  themselves  to  Jaimus, 
and  rebel  against  queen  Elizabeth,  were  granted  a  plenary  indul- 
gence and  remission  of  their  sins,  as  in  the  case  of  making  war 
on  the  Turks  in  the  Holy  Land!^  The  general  declared  to  the 
Irish  chieftains  "what  was  true,  that  he  had  been  sent  by  the 
chief  pontiff  to  assist  the  Irish  against  the  heretics,  for  the  rights 
and  liberty  of  the  catholic  church  ;  and,  therefore,  that  he  bore 
the  keys  depicted  on  his  standards,  because  they  were  fighting 
for  him  who  had  the  keys  of  Heavenr^  Such  was  the  method 
by  which  the  Roman  sect  was  propagated.  We  find  the  same 
^bishop  '  Omelrian,  again  in  1583,  arriving  from  Spain,  where 
he  had  been  an  emissary  of  the  rebel  earl  of  Desmond  with  a 
supply  of  men,  money,  and  ar?ns.^ 

It  is  lamentable  to  find  that  persons  assuming  the  sacred  title 
of  bishop,  could  be  guilty  of  conduct  so  inconsistent  with 
Christian  sanctity  and  piety.  Edmund  Macgabhrana,  pseudo- 
archbishop  of  Armagh,  came  from  Spain  about  1598,  having 
the  commands  of  the  king  of  Spain  to  the  Irish  to  declare  war 
against  the  '  protestants'  for  the  '  catholic'  faith,  and  that  they 
should  receive  aid  from  him  immediately.  Macgabhrana  "pro- 
ceeding to  Macguier,  who  was  then  at  war  {i.  e.  in  insurrection 
against  the  queen),  and  was  a  man  desirous  of  warfare,  easily 


Jaimus  G  regorium  decimumtertium  pontificem  exorat,  ut  ecclesise'catholicfe 
in  Ibernia  jam  pene  corruenti  ferat  opem :  a  quo  demum  impetravit  impuni- 
tatem  iis  latronibus  ea  conditione,  ut  secum  in  Iberniam  proficiscerentur. 
.  .  .  Quibus  summus  pontifex  duces  praBfecit  Herculem  Pisanum  .  .  . 
aliosque  Romanos  milites." — OsuUevan,  p.  94,  95. 

'  Osullevan,  Hist.  Cath.  p.  101. 

g  "  Id  quod  erat,  se  fuisse  a  pontifice  maximo  Ibernis  auxilio  missum  in 
haereticos  pro  ecclesiee  catholicae  jure  et  libertate  ;  ob  id  in  militaribus  signis 
claves  gerere  depictas,  quod  illi  militabant  qui  regni  coelorum  claves  habe- 
bat."— Osullevan,  Hist.  Cath.  p.  95. 

*■  Carte's  Life  of  Ormond,  Introduct.  p.  57. 


516  THE  BRITISH  REFORMATION.  [PART  II. 

confirmed  by  him  by  the  words  of  the  cathohc  king  and  by  the 
hope  of  aid."'  This  warhke  pontiff  fell  shortly  afterwards  in 
battle  with  the  queen's  troops. 

Not  long  after,  Odonel,  chief  of  Tirconnel,  being  engaged 
in  plotting  an  insurrection  against  the  queen,  employed  a  Ro- 
mish bishop  as  his  agent.  "  Odonel  observing  and  thinking 
within  himself  that  it  would  be  difficult  to  free  Ireland  and  the 
catholic  religion  from  the  heresy  and  tyranny  of  the  English, 
without  the  aid  of  foreign  princes  ;  sends  as  his  ambassador 
Jaimus  Ohely,  '  archbishop  of  Tuam,'  a  man  of  known  learn- 
ing and  innocent  life,  to  lay  before  Philip  II.  king  of  Spain, 
the  state  of  Ireland  ;  to  beseech  aid  from  him  for  the  catholic 
faith  nearly  fallen,  which  he  had  promised  by  '  the  primate  of 
Ireland'  (Macgabhrana) ;  and  to  promise  the  assistance  and 
obedience  of  Odonel  and  the  other  Irish  chiefs.'""  This  Romish 
bishop  extolled  to  king  Philip  the  advantages  of  Ireland,  which 
he  exhorted  him  to  invade  and  subdue,  as  he  might  from  thence 
easily  conquer  England,  &c.  The  king  was  much  struck  by 
his  representations,  as  we  are  informed  by  Osullevan  ;  and  a 
few  years  afterwards  sent  a  fleet  with  17,000  troops  to  invade 
Ireland  ;  but  it  was  unhappily  shipwrecked  on  the  coast  of 
Gallicia.i 

>  Sub  hoc  tempus  Edmundus  Macgabhranus  Iberniae  primas  archiepis- 
copus  Ardmachse  ex  Hispania  a  Jaimo  Flamingo  Pontanensi  mercatore 
vehitur,  habens  ad  Ibernos  regis  Hispanias  7nandata  ut  protestantibus  pro 
fide  catholica  bellum  indicent,  et  ab  ipso  quam  celerrime  auxilium  mitten- 
dum  esse,  intelligant ;  et  ad  Macguierum,  qui  jam  bellum  gerebat,  profectus, 
cupidum  bellandi  virum  catholici  regis  verbis  et  auxilii  spe,  in  incepto 
facile  confirmavit." — Osullevan,  p.  127. 

^  "  Jaimum  Ohelium  Tuemis  archiepiscopum,  virum  doctrina  et  inno- 
cents vita  probatum,  legatum  mittit,  qui  Philippo  II.  Hispaniarum  monarchae 
Ibernarum  rerum  statum  pandat ;  ab  eo  declinata  pa:ne  catholica  fidei 
opem  petat  quam  per  Ibernias  primatem  promiserat,  et  illi  Odonelli  et  alio- 
rum  magnatum,  Ibernorum  operam  et  obedientiam  poUiceatur. " — Osullevan, 
Hist.  Cath.  p.  130. 

I  Ibid.  130,  131, 


CHAP.  IX.]  SCHISMATICAL  PRIESTS  IN  IRELAND.  417 

The  monarch  with  whom  these  ecclesiastics  held  such  con- 
tinual intercourse  was  the  same,  who  in  1588,  fitted  out  the 
"  invincible  armada "  for  the  conquest  of  England  ;  or  as  the 
Romish  historian  describes  it :  "Philip  the  Second,  that  most 
wise  king  of  Spain,  commiserating  the  calamity  and  hellish 
state  of  England,  in  which  he  had  reigned  for  a  short  time  on 
his  marriage  with  queen  Mary,  having  prepared  an  excellently 
appointed  fleet,  sends  into  that  island  a  most  powerful  army 
commanded  by  the  duke  of  Medina  Sidonia,  which  would  have 
extingnished  without  doubt  the  deadly  pest  of  heresy  in  its  very 
cradle,  if  it  had  been  safely  landed.  But  {our  sins  preventing 
it)  in  the  year  1.588,  partly  by  the  art  of  the  heretics,  but  chiefly 
by  a  great  tempest,  the  fleet  was  dispersed,"™  &c. 

To  return  to  the  proceedings  of  the  schismatic  clergy.  When 
Odonel  was  in  insurrection  against  the  crown,  and  had  ravaged 
Connaught  and  other  parts  of  Ireland,  we  read  that  amongst  his 
troops  "  were  some  ecclesiastics,  especially  Raymond  Ogal- 
lachur,  'bishop  of  Derry  and  vice-primate  of  Ireland,'  who 
absolved  from  the  bond  of  excommunication,  those  who  de~ 
serted  from  the  royal  army  to  the  '  catholic. '  ""^  About  the 
same  time  (1600)  "  came  into  Ulster  friar  Matthew  de  Oviedo, 
a  Spaniard,  *  archbishop  of  Dublin,'  and  Martin  Cerda,  a  noble 
Spanish  knight,  bringing  from  the  chief  pontiff  to  all  who  should 
take  arms  against  the  English  for  the  faith,  indulgences  and 
pardon  of  their  sins,"  together  with  the  aid  of  22,000  pieces  of 
gold  to  the  insurgents."  This  friar  returned  again  to  Spain, 
but  it  was  only  to  join  in  an  expedition  sent  by  king  Philip  to 
invade  Ireland,  under  the  command  of  Joannes  Aquila,  who, 
however,  was  obhged  to  retire  before  long  without  accompli  sh- 


n>  "  Miseratus  calamitatem  atque  Tartareum  statum  Angliae  .  .  .  caeterum 
peccatis  nostris  obstantibus,  anno  redemtionis  1588  partim  hajreticorum 
arte,"  &c.— OsuUevan,  p.  120,  121. 

n  Ibid.  p.  144. 

°  Deferentes  a  summo  pontifice  omnibus  qui  pro  fide  in  Anglos  arma 
caperent,  indulgentias  et  peccatorum  omnium,"  &c. — Ibid.  p.  167.  Co>t, 
Hist.  Ireland,  p.  422. 


518  THE  BRITISH  REFORMATION.  [PART  II. 

ing  anything. P  In  1602,  Eugene  Maceogan,  whom  the  Roman 
pontiff  had  sent  over  as  his  vicar,  with  the  title  of  the  see  of 
Ross,  together  with  his  brethren  in  schism  assuming  the  titles 
of  Clonfert  and  Killaloe,  issued  an  excommunication  against  all 
who  should  take  up  arms  in  the  cause  of  heresy,  or  give  quarter 
to  the  prisoners  of  the  royal  army.'i  Maceogan  absolved  all 
such  prisoners  from  their  sins,  and  then  caused  them  to  be  put  to 
death  in  his  presence.  He  fell  in  battle  against  the  royal  army, 
leading  a  troop  of  horse,  with  his  sword  in  one  hand  and  his 
breviary  and  beads  in  the  other."^ 

In  this  manner  the  schism  arose  in  Ireland.  Originating  in 
the  exhortations  and  impostures  of  foreign  emissaries,  addressed 
to  a  superstitious,  an  ignorant,  and  a  credulous  people,  it  was 
fomented  by  the  arrival  of  usurping  and  intrusive  bishops  sent 
by  the  Roman  pontiff,  and  completed  amidst  rebellion  and 
massacre,  stimulated  by  the  unholy  ministers  of  the  new  com- 
munion. Alternately  deluded,  terrified,  encouraged,  and  excited 
to  schism  and  insurrection,  by  their  chieftains  and  their  priests, 
it  is  not  to  be  wondered  at  that  too  many  of  these  unhappy 
people  fell  from  the  right  way,  and  from  obedience  to  the  ori- 
ginal and  catholic  hierarchy  of  Ireland.  It  is  needless  to  pro- 
ceed further  in  this  lamentable  history,  which  would  furnish 
too  frequently  a  repetition  of  the  same  features.  The  Romish 
sect  in  Ireland  was  founded  in  schism,  in  rebellion,  and  by 
force  of  arms ;  not  by  the  peaceful  weapons  of  argument  and 
prayer.  And  as  it  was  unholy  in  its  origin,  so  were  its  fruits 
unholy  ;  "  Certainly,"  says  Osullevan,  "the  Irish  of  my  party 
{i.  e.  the  Romish),  although  they  excel  most  nations  in  their 
honour  and  observance  of  the  catholic  faith  and  of  divine  reli- 
o-ion,  yet  in  the  time  of  this  war  were  much  worse  than  Turks 
or  heretics  in  faction,    dissension,  ambition,  and  perfidy.'"' 

p  Osullevan,  Hist.  Cath.  p.  175.  177. 
H  Leland,  vol.  ii.  p.  405. 

'  Leland,  Hist.  Ireland,  vol.  ii.  p.  40G.     Cox,  Hist.  Ireland,  p.  453. 
B  «  Certe  Iberni  mei  quaravis  catholicae  fidei  religionisque  divinae  cultu 
et  observantia  plerisque  gentibus  praestent,  hujus  tamen  belli  tempore,  fac- 


CHAP.  IX.]  IRISH  SCHISM  INEXCUSABLE.  519 

"  There  are  not  wanting  some  who  kill  the  minister-clergy — 
though  seldom.  Many  cause  them  such  fear  that  they  cannot 
exercise  their  heretical  office,"*  &c.  ,         —  . 

It  may  be  alleged,  in  justification  of  the  conduct  of  these 
schismatics,  that  great  severities  were  exercised  by  the  govern- 
ment against  their  bishops  and  pastors  :  but  surely  it  is  impos- 
sible to  wonder  that  the  queen  treated  as  rebels  and  traitors 
men,  who  acted  as  political  agents  and  emissaries  from  those 
Roman  pontiffs  who  had  issued  bulls  deposing  her  from  her 
sovereignty,  absolving  her  subjects  from  their  allegiance,  con- 
ferring her  dominions  on  the  king  of  Spain,  and  promising 
plenary  remission  of  sins  to  all  who  should  rise  in  insurrection 
against  her.  The  first  principles  of  self-preservation  required 
the  punishment  of  those,  who  are  acknowledged  by  their  own 
historians  to  have  been  sent  by  foreign  powers,  for  the  purpose 
of  exciting  insurrection  in  Ireland,  on  the  avowed  principle  that 
the  Roman  pontiff  had  conferred  her  dominions  on  another 
monarch.  Those  historians  acknowledge  that  the  disturbances 
in  Ireland  were  excited  by  the  papal  bulls ;  and  that  when  some 
of  the  Romish  party  doubted  the  lawfulness  of  taking  up  arms 
against  their  sovereign,  the  pontiff  forbad  any  division,  and 
ordered  all  to  unite  their  forces  against  the  queen."  It  is  even 
acknowledged  that  "  when  just  and  honourable  conditions  of 
peace  were  offered  by  the  queen  to  the  '  catholic '  priests  and 
laity,"  the  ambassadors  of  king  Philip  persuaded  tli'em  to  break 
off  the  treaty  by  promises  of  further  assistance  from  Spain, 
and  that  the  very  same  circumstance  afterwards  broke  off  a 
treaty  between  Norris  and  Odonel.''  We  cannot  wonder,  then, 
that  the  government  treated  the  Romish  bishops  and  priests  as 


tione,  dissidio,  ambitione,  perfidia,  Turcis  et  haereticis  plurimi  deterius  fue- 
runt." — Osullevan,  119. 

t  "  Non  desunt  qui  ministro-clericos  etsi  raro  occidant.  Multi  illis  me- 
tum  incutiiint  ut  nee  ipsi  munus  hsreticum  exercere,  nee  catholicos  sacer- 
dotes  divinis  ofRciis  prohibere  audcant." — Ibid.  227. 

"  Ibid.  117.  V  Ibid.  142.  144. 


520  THE  BRITISH  REFORMATION.  [PART  II. 

its  enemies ;  and  we  are  fully  entitled  to  disbelieve  the  accounts 
of  tortures  alleged  to  have  been  inflicted  on  some  of  them,  be- 
cause WQ  observe  in  their  writers  a  total  disregard  of  truth 
where  the  interests  of  their  sect  were  to  be  promoted. 

The  schism  was  thus  formed,  but  its  power  was  broken  con- 
siderably  by  the  unsuccessful  issue  of  the  various  rebellions  in 
the  reign  of  Elizabeth,  and  by  the  resolution  of  James  the  First 
to  prevent  the  residence  of  Jesuits,  missionary  priests,  popish 
bishops,  &c.  in  his  dominions.     In   1621,  Osullevan  describes 
the  Romish  hierarchy  thus  :   "  There  are  four  archbishoprics 
and  many  bishoprics,  and  all  are  at  present  possessed  by  '  here- 
siarchs : '  therefore  *  catholic '  prelates  are  not,  except  rarely 
ordained  to  their  titles,  because  it  seems,  that  without  revenue 
so  large  a  number  of  bishops  cannot  maintain  their  dignity  and 
honour.     Therefore  tlie  four  archbishops  who  are  inaugurated 
hy  the  Roman  pontiff,  constitute  in  their  suffragan  dioceses, 
vicars  general,   by  the  authority  of  the  pope,  who  are  either 
priests,  or  inferior  clergy,  or  religious  :  these  again  appoint  the 
parochial  clergy.     Eugenius  Macmagaun,  archbishop  of  Dub- 
lin, and  David  Ocarney   of  Cashel,   undertake  great  dangers 
and  vast  labours  to  tend  their  flocks  personally  (N.  B.  these 
usurping  prelates  were  in   the  pay  of  Spain'^) ;  while  Peter 
Lombard  of  Armagh,  and    Florence  Omelcontrius  of  Tuam, 
who  for  many  reasons  cannot  remain  safely  in  Ireland,  on  ac- 
count of  the  English,  have  delegated  their  provinces  to  vicars."^ 
On  the  other  hand,  the  church  maintained  a  continual  succes- 
sion of  bishops  in  all  the  sees  of  Ireland.     We  have  seen  that 
the  prelates  consented  almost  unanimously  to  remove  the  papal 
jurisdiction  in  Ireland  in  1560.     In  the  Irish  parliament  under 
sir  John  Perrott's  administration,  a.d.  1585,  four  archbishops 
and  twenty  bishops  were  actually  present,^'  and  as  we  know  that 
at  this  time  three  of  the  twenty-nine  sees  existing  at  the  acces- 


"■"  Phelan,  Remains,  vol.  ii.  p.  294.         »  Osullevan,  Hist.  Cath.  p.  229. 
y  Cox,  History  of  Ireland,  p.  383. 


CHAP.  IX.]       SUCCESSION   OF   THE   CHURCH  OF  IRELAND.  521 

sion  of  Elizabeth,  were  held  in  commendam  with  others,  and 
one  at  least  was  vacant,''  we  see  that  at  this  time  all  the  dio- 
ceses of  Ireland  must  have  been  possessed  by  the  church. 
Sir  John  Davis  seems  to  have  erred  in  saying  that  there  were 
three  northern  dioceses  to  which  the  queen  never  presented,''  as 
we  find  Magrath  made  bishop  of  Clogher  (one  of  them)  in  1570,^ 
but  at  all  events  the  bishops  of  those  dioceses  must  have  been 
in  communion  with  the  church  of  Ireland  in  1585.*=  Thus  the  re- 
gular and  ancient  succession  of  bishops  from  St.  Patrick  through 
a  long  line  of  venerable  prelates,  has  descended  continually  in 
the  church  of  Ireland  to  the  present  day.  The  Romish  society 
on  the  other  hand,  derived  its  mission  and  succession  from  the 
pope  of  Rome  in  the  reign  of  Elizabeth  and  James  the  First, 
and  cannot  in  any  degree  derive  itself  from-  the  ancient  church 
of  Ireland  from  which  it  separated. 

We  may  conclude  from  these  facts,  that  the  community  of 
Romanists  in  Ireland  thus  formed,  was  no  part  of  the  church  of 
Christ ;  for  I  have  before  proved  that  voluntary  separation  from 
a  Christian  church,  and  the  establishment  of  a  rival  communion, 
is  a  separation  from  Jesus  Christ,  and  altogether  inexcusable.'* 
The  oTily  defence  which  can  be  offered,  is  that  the  church  of 
Irelana  had  herself  become  heretical  and  apostate.  Were  this 
manifestly  true,  there  would  indeed  have  been  a  positive  obliga- 
tion to.  forsake  her  communion  :  but  I  contend  that  there  is  no 


'  Einly  was  united  to  Cashel,  Ross  to  Cloyne,  Clonmacnois  to  Meath, 
before  this  time  (see  Ware).  Killala  or  Mayo  was  vacant,  as  we  leam 
from  Osullevan,  who  says  it  was  in  vain  offered  to  Gelasius  Ocullenan,  on 
condition  of  his  forsaking  the  cause  of  the  Roman  pontiif. — Hist.  Cath.  p. 
105.  Sir  John  Perrott  wrote  to  England  in  1584,  that  no  more  bishoprics 
ought  to  be  put  in  commendam. — Cox,  p.  382. 

»  Viz.  Clogher,  Raphoe,  and  Derry.     See  his  "  Causes  why  Ireland,''  «fec, 

^  Sir  J.  Ware's  Bishops  of  Ireland. 

c  Leland  says  the  bishops  of  Clogher  and  Raphoe  sat  in  the  parliament 
that  year. — Hist.  Ireland,  vol.  ii.  p.  1:^95, 

^  See  Part  I.  Chapter  IV. 
VOL.  I. — 66 


522  THE    BRITISH    REFORMATION.  [PART  II, 

evidence  of  her  heresy  in  any  point  whatever.  The  removal  of 
the  papal  jurisdiction  in  Ireland  v^^as  merely  a  restoration  of  an 
ancient  discipline  which  had  never  been  changed  by  any  law  of 
the  universal  church.  In  short,  whatever  was  done,  had  the 
assent  of  the  bishops,  the  ordinary  pastors  of  the  church,  and 
successors  of  the  apostles,  whose  judgment  ought  to  have  been 
a  sufficient  warrant  to  the  ignorant  and  undisciplined  people, 
that  the  catholic  faith  and  discipline  were  preserved  in  their 
integrity.  Their  first  and  most  solemn  duty  was  to  hear  and 
obey  their  immediate  bishops  and  pastors  in  those  questions 
which  they  were  incompetent  'to  decide  themselves  ;  but  they 
permitted  themselves  to  be  deceived  by  the  foreign  monks  and 
priests  who  came  to  sow  dissension  in  the  church.  The  sect 
which  was  thus  created  arose  in  separation  from  an  older  Chris- 
tian society ;  it  was  founded  by  unholy  men,  who  encouraged 
schism,  practised  on  the  ignorant  by  false  miracles,  were  in- 
volved in  treason,  and  excited  sedition,  war,  and  massacre.  It 
was  not  apostolical,  because  it  separated  from  the  successors  of 
the  apostles  in  Ireland,  and  adhered  to  the  intruding  bishops, 
whom  the  Roman  pontiffs  sent  over  to  excite  sedition.  And  as 
its  first  ministers  were  mere  usurpers,  so  in  latter  time?  it  has 
become  questionable  whether  any  of  their  ordinations  are  valid.® 
Consequently  we  cannot  admit  this  sect  to  constitute  any  part 
of  the  catholic  church,  and  the  whole  history  of  Ireland  from  the 
period  of  the  reformation  to  the  present  time,  affords  a  terrible 
example  of  the  retribution  which  grievous  sins  draw  down  upon 
the  descendants  of  the  guilty. 

''  See  Part  VI.  Chapter  on  Romish  Ordinutions. 


CHAPTER  X.  . 

HON  THE  REFORMATION  AND   SCHISMS  IN  SCOTLAND. 

Those  who  contemplate  without  prejudice  the  conduct  of  re- 
ligious parties  in  Scotland  during  the  sixteenth  century,  will 
find  none  of  them  exempt  from  serious  faults,  which  gave  rise 
to  evils  almost  unprecedented.  The  gross  corruptions  and 
abuses  of  all  sorts  long  prevalent  in  the  Scottish  church,  were 
maintained  against  the  spirit  of  reformation  with  a  severity 
which  was  at  last  fatal  to  those  who  exercised  it.  The  burn- 
ing of  Hamilton,  Forrest,  Gourlay,  Straiten,  Russell,  Kennedy, 
Wishart,  Wallace,  Mill,  &c.  for  supposed  heresy,  together  with 
innumerable  imprisonments  and  banishments  for  the  same  of- 
fence,^ disgusted  the  majority  of  the  nation  ;  and  the  want  of 
energy  and  zeal  which  the  prelates  of  the  Romish  party  evinced 
when  their  opponents  gained  the  ascendancy,  and  which,  togeth- 
er with  their  immoral  lives,  is  fully  admitted  by  Lesley,  bishop 
of  Ross,''  threw  almost  the  whole  nation  at  once  into  the  cause 
of  the  Reformation.  In  1560,  the  reforming  party  having  pe- 
titioned for  relief  from  persecution  until  a  lawful  general  coun- 
cil might  determine  the  pending  controversies,''  were  powerful 
enough  to  obtain  from  a  convention  of  estates  a  sanction  of  their 
confession  of  faith,  the  suppression  of  the  spiritual  courts  which 


a  Archbishop  Spottiswood,  History  of  the  Church  of  Scotland,  p.  63 — 96. 
It  appears  to  me  th  it  this  work  is,  in  point  of  judgment,  preferable  to  other 
histories  of  the  Scottish  church.  John  Knox's  history  cannot  be  relied  on 
as  genuine.  According  to  Spottiswood,  p.  267,  it  quotes  "Fox's  Martyrs," 
which  did  not  appear  till  ten  years  after  the  death  of  Knox. 

^  Leslaeus,  De  Reb.  Gest.  Scotorum,  lib.  x.  p.  583.     Roms,  1578. 

•=  Spottiswood,  p.  119. 


524  THE  BRITISH  REFORMATION.  [pART  11, 

aggrieved  them  for  thirty  years,  and  a  proscription  of  the  office 
of  the  mass.*^  The  "congregation"  or  reforming  party  had 
been  treated  as  heretics  by  their  opponents,  and  separated  from 
their  communion  ;  but  this  division  did  not  last  very  long,  for  the 
whole  nation  soon  became  unanimous.  Four  of  the  bishops 
united  themselves  v^^ith  the  promoters  of  the  Reformation,^  a 
larger  number  v/eie  either  actively  or  passively  opposed  to  it : 
but  the  latter  either  forsook  their  sees  and  went  abroad,  or  died 
before  long,  and  were  succeeded  by  others  more  favourable  to 
the  Reformation.  The  papal  party  dwindled  to  nothing  :^  it  was 
without  bishops,  had  no  organized  churches,  and  about  1580 
several  foreign  Jesuits  and  missionary  priests  began  to  resort  to 
Scotland  and  endeavour  to  make  converts. §■ 

From  about  1572  it  seems  that  all  the  Scots  were  united  in 
the  national  church.  The  ancient  churches  of  St.  Andrew's, 
Glasgow,  &c.  still  continued,^  and  were  presided  over  by  bish- 
ops and  archbishops,  some  of  whom  had  been  constituted  before 
the  Reformation,'  and  others  with  consent  of  the  Convention 


d  Ibid.  p.  150.  The  office  of  the  ml,ss  was  proscribed  in  Scotland  at  this 
time  as  "  idolatrous."  It  is  very  probable  that  in  Scotland  the  people  may- 
have  generally  practised  idolatry  iti  this  office  ;  and  a  new  form  of  adminis- 
tering that  rite  under  a  different  name,  may  have  been  necessary  on  account 
of  their  evil  habits.  But  it  could  not  have  been  the  intention  to  affirm,  that 
all  the  Western  church  had  been  involved  in  formal  idolatry  for  a  thousand 
years. 

«  Bothwell,  bishop  of  Orkney,  Gordon  of  Galloway,  Stewart  of  Caithness, 
Hamilton  of  Argyle. — See  Keith's  Scottish  Bishops. 

*■  Skinner's  Ecclesiast.  History  of  Scotland,  vol.  ii.  p.  165. 

s  Spottiswood,  p.  308.  Russell,  History  of  the  Church  in  Scotland,  vol. 
ii.  p.  26.  The  Romish  party  had  no  bishops  until  the  reign  of  James  II., 
when  the  pope  sent  them  a  titular  bishop. — See  Dodd's  Church  History. 

t  See  Keith's  Historical  Catalogue  of  the  Scottish  bishops,  by  Dr.  Rus- 
sell, bishop  of  Glasgow. 

'  Beaton,  archbishop  of  Glasgow,  consecrated  1551,  died  in  possession 
of  his  see  in  1603,  though  for  a  time  it  had  been  occupied  by  others. — Keith, 
p.  259.  262.  Bothwell,  made  bishop  of  Orkney  by  queen  Mary  in  1562, 
died  1593.— Keith,  p.  226.     Gordon,  bishop  of  Galloway  in  1558,  died 


CHAP.  X.]  REFORMATION  IN  SCOTLAND.  525 

of  the  Church  in  1571,  which  agreed  that  the  sees  then  vacant 
should  be  filled,  that  the  bishops  should  exercise  spiritual  juris- 
diction in  their  dioceses,  should  be  elected  by  the  chapters,^  &c. 
Thenceforward  the  dioceses  of  Scotland  were  filled  by  bishops 
who  were  consecrated  by  other  prelates  and  sat  in  parliament.^ 
The  episcopate  indeed  had  not  been  abolished  even  by  the  con- 
ventions or  parliaments  which  established  the  reformed  confes- 
sion of  faith.  On  the  contrary,  the  reformed  consented  at  that 
time  that  the  existing  bishops  should  continue,  and  receive  a 
large  portion  of  their  revenues.™  The  Convention  of  1571  did 
not  revive  or  introduce  the  episcopate,  but  merely  approved  its 
continuance.  The  superintendants  which  had  been  constituted 
in  1560  by  the  reformed,  under  their  peculiar  circumstances,  to 
watch  over  their  societies,''  were  permitted  to  retain  a  certain 
jurisdiction  during  their  lives,  and  then  the  order  was  discon- 
tinued. 

Such  being  in  general  the  position  of  the  church  of  Scotland 
up  to  the  accession  of  James  VI.  to  the  throne  of  England,  there 
seemed  no  reason  to  dispute  its  character  as  a  church  of  Christ. 
The  succession  of  bishops  was  apparently  preserved,  and  the 
archbishop  of  Glasgow,  who  had  been  consecrated  before  the 
Reformation,  died  in  possession  of  his  see,  a.d.  1603.  Nor  had 
the  church  then  existing  separated  itself  from  any  more  ancient 
society  in  Scotland,  for  almost  the  whole  church  there  had  adopt- 
ed the  Reformation ;  and  in  fine  they  did  not  profess  to  differ 
in  doctrine  from  the  English  churches  ;  therefore  the  English 
Convocation  of  1603  were  justified  in  recognizing  the  church 


1576._Ib.  p.  279.  Stewart,  bishop  of  Caithness,  1-542,  died  1586.— lb.  p. 
215.     Hamilton,  bishop  of  Argyle,  1558,  living  in  1575.— lb.  p.  290. 

k  Spottiswood,  p.  260.  Knox  himself  highly  approved  of  this. — See  Rus- 
sell, vol.  i.  p.  332. 

1  [See  the  Note  of  the  author  at  the  end  of  the  chapter.] 

m  Skinner,  Eccl.  Hist.  vol.  ii.  p.  122.     Russell,  vol.  i.  p.  267. 

■  Spottiswood,  p.  158. 


526  THE    BRITISH   REFORMATION.  [PART  II. 

of  Scotland  as  a  portion  of  the  Christian  church,°  though  it  is 
certain,  that  if  they  had  been  fully  aware  of  the  extreme  disor- 
ders then  prevalent  in  Scotland,  they  would  have  given  the  title 
of  "  Church"  in  a  modified  sense,  not  as  implying  a  society 
perfectly  organized  according  to  the  Divine  institution. 

Scotland  was  for  a  long  period  in  a  state  of  anarchy.  Its 
feeble  government  was  set  at  defiance  by  powerful  and  lawless 
barons  ;  and  the  evils  which  resulted  to  the  church  in  conse- 
quence were  unparalleled,  except  perhaps  in  France  under  the 
Merovingian  dynasty.  Boniface,  archbishop  of  Mentz,  stated 
that  in  his  time  "  the  episcopal  sees  for  the  most  part  were 
given  up  to  the  possession  of  avaricious  laymen,''^  or  to  clergy 
of  the  most  scandalous  character.  He  observes  that  for  eighty 
years  there  had  been  no  archbishop  in  France,  no  synods, p  &c. 
Such  in  fact  was  too  often  the  fate  of  the  Scottish  sees,  and 
even  those  bishops  who  were  consecrated  do  not  seem  to 
have  been  validly  ordained  by  other  bishops. i  The  church  of 
England  however,  could  scarcely  have  known  this,  for  the  very 
little  intercourse  between  the  two  nations  at  that  time  is  a  mat- 
ter of  notoriety  ;''  and  as  we  knew  that  bishops  had  embraced 
the  Reformation  in  Scotland,  and  that  others  had  been  con- 
secrated since  by  bishops,  we  could  only  infer  that  their  conse- 
cration had  been  validly  performed.  Besides  these  irregulari- 
ties, it  appears,  in  fact,  that  several  of  the  ministers  were  not 
ordained  by  imposition  of  hands,  from  the  introduction  of  false 
maxims,  and  that  the  inferior  clergy  usurped  an  authority  which 
was  inconsistent  with  the  proper  office  of  their  bishops,  and 
even  dared  to  depose  bishops,  and  to  censure  the  episcopal 


o  Canon  LV.  a.d.  1603,  where  in  the  form  of  prayer  before  sermons,  it  is 
said :  "  Ye  shall  pray  for  Christ's  holy  catholic  church,  that  is,  for  the  whole 
congregation  of  Christian  people  dispersed  throughout  the  whole  world,  and 
especially  for  the  churches  of  England,  Scotland,  and  Ireland." 

p  Thomassin.  Vet.  et  Nov.  Ecclesia  Disciplina,  tom.  ii.  p.  329. 

q  Keith,  Scottish  Bishops,  p.  216. 

t  Robertson's  History  of  Scotland,  book  viii.  vol.  iii.  p.  200. 


CHAP.  X.]     SCHISM  IN  SCOTLAND. — PRESBYTERIANISM.  527 

office,^  under  the  influence  of  a  misguided  man  named  Mel- 
ville. However,  these  calamities  were  terminated  by  the  wise 
conduct  of  king  James,  and  in  1612  the  Scottish  bishops  elect 
received  from  the  English  that  apostolical  commission  which 
was  necessary  to  the  completion  of  their  church.  From  that 
time  the  church  of  Scotland  has  always  continued  to  be  guided 
by  a  regular  succession  of  bishops  even  to  the  present  day, 
though  afflicted  by  many  grievous  losses  and  persecutions, 
especially  since  the  Revolution  of  1688. 

I  am  now  to  speak  of  the  Presbyterian  societies  in  Scotland, 
and  examine  their  claim  to  be  considered  a  part  of  the  Chris- 
tian church.  The  novel  principle  of  the  unlawfulness  of  epis- 
copacy was  first  introduced  into  Scotland  by  Melville,  about 
1575,  who  had  just  returned  from  Geneva,  and  was  desirous 
of  introducing  the  discipline  established  there.*  He  succeeded 
in  exciting  great  disturbances  in  the  church,  and  in  1580,  an 
assembly  of  clergy  at  Dundee  even  declared  the  office  of  bishop 
unlawful.''  However,  as  I  have  said,  episcopacy  continued 
till  the  time  of  Charles  the  First,  when  the  nobility,  irritated 
by  the  king's  revocation  of  the  grants  of  church  lands,  and 
jealous  of  the  bishops,  united  themselves  with  the  presbyterian 
party,  which  broke  into  insurrection  against  the  king,  abolished 
episcopacy  by  act  of  parliament,  and  instituted  the  "  solemn 
league  and  covenant,"  one  of  whose  articles  consisted  of  an 
engagement  to  "  endeavour  the  extirpation  of  prelacy,  that  is, 
church  government  by  archbishops,  bishops,^  &c."  These 
proceedings  being  annulled  on  the  restoration  of  Charles  H., 
the  church  of  Scotland  continued  till  1690  to  be  subject  to  its 
bishops  like  all  other  churches,  though  many  adherents  of  the 
covenant  formed  conventicles  and  separated  themselves  from 
the  church.'^     In  1690,   this  party  of  dissenters  obtained  the 


s  Ibid.  p.  311.     Spottiswood,  p.  219,  311. 
[    1  Spottiswood,  p.  275.  "  Russel 


[    1  Spottiswood,  p.  275.  "  Russell,  vol.  i.  p.  377. 

^  Skinner,  Eccl.  Hist.  vol.  ii.  p,  368.  "  Ibid.  p.  470 


528  THE  BRITISH   REFORMATION.  [PART  II. 

support  of  the  civil  power  (in  consequence  of  the  refusal  of  the 
bishops  to  acknowledge  king  William  III.),  and  under  their 
influence  the  Scottish  parhament  consummated  a  most  woful 
schism,  abolishing  episcopacy  and  establishing  the  presbyterian 
separatists  as  the  church  of  Scotland.  Thus  the  bishops  and 
clergy  were  deprived  of  their  estates  and  all  their  legal  rights,  and 
their  place  and  authority  was  usurped  by  others,  while  a  portion 
of  the  nation  fell  from  their  obedience,  and  united  .themselves  to 
the  new  establishment,  which  afterwards  obtained  many  con- 
verts by  the  severe  persecution  which  it  directed  against  the 
church.^ 

Hence  it  would  be  a  great  mistake  to  suppose  that  the  ques- 
tion between  the  presbyterians  and  the  church  was  merely  a 
dispute  on  church  government :  it  was  concerning  the  most 
vital  principles  of  church  unity  and  authority.  The  presbyte- 
rians were  innovators  who  se'parated  themselves  from  the 
church,  because  they  judged  episcopacy  antichristian,  and.  thus 
condemned  the  church  universal  in  all  past  ages.  Their 
opinion  was  erroneous,  but  had  it  merely  extended  to  a  prefer- 
ence for  the  presbyterian  form,  it  might  have  been  in  some  de- 
gree tolerated  :  it  would  not  have  cut  them  off  from  the  church 

X  The  Cameronians  (dissenters)  forcibly  drove  out  two  hundred  of  the 
clergy,  before  any  alteration  of  religion  was  made  by  law. — Russell,  ii.  348, 
&c.  It  appears  that  the  majority  of  the  people  were  in  1690  still  attached 
to  their  church. — Russell,  359,  &c.  ;  and  almost  the  whole  body  of  the 
clergy  remained  stedfast. — lb.  362.  The  clergy  were  in  1695  prohibited 
by  act  of  parliament  from  baptizing  or  solemnizing  marriage  on  pain  of 
banishment. — lb.  380.  In  1707  all  their  chapels  were  closed  by  order  of 
government  (lb.  392),  and  those  who  officiated  were  imprisoned. — lb.  394. 
In  1746,  after  the  battle  of  Culloden,  the  magistrates  directed  the  soldiers 
and  the  mob  against  them,  burned  their  chapels,  plundered  their  vestments 
and  plate,  burned  their  books,  and  compelled  them  to  seek  safety  in  flight  or 
concealment. — lb.  401.  Every  clerg}rman  ordained  by  a  Scottish  bi.shop 
was  by  act  of  parliament  made  liable  to  transportation  for  celebrating 
divine  worship,  and  their  people  were  .subjected  to  fine  or  imprisonment. — 
lb.  402,  403.  Under  this  dreadftil  persecution  they  remained  for  forty-two 
years.  »  ' '' 


CHAP.  X.]  PRESBYTERIANISM.  529 

of  Christ ;  but  it  was  the  exaggeration  of  their  opinion  :  their 
separation  for  the  sake  of  this  opinion,  their  actual  rejection  of 
the  authority  and  communion  of  the  existing  successors  of  the 
apostles  in  Scotland,  and  therefore  of  the  universal  church  in  all 
ages,  that  marks  them  out  as  schismatics  ;  and  all  the  temporal 
enactments  and  powers  of  the  whole  world  could  not  cure  this 
fault,  nor  render  them  a  portion  of  the  church  of  Christ.  Jf  a 
party  of  schismatics  should  now  separate  themselves  from  the 
communion  of  the  church  of  England,  and  should  by  a  fortu- 
nate combination  of  events  be  able  to  effect  the  temporal  over- 
throw of  the  church,  and  their  own  establishment  by  the  civil 
power ;  this  would  surely  not  deprive  the  church  of  her  claim 
to  the  adherence  of  Christians,  nor  cover  the  sins  of  those  who 
had  assailed  and  despoiled  her.  This  appears  really  to  have 
been  the  case  of  the  Scottish  church  and  the  presbyterians  ;  and 
therefore  while  we  must  ever  deplore  the  condition  of  Scotland, 
and  most  earnestly  desire  that  her  people  may  be  reunited  in 
religious  harmony,  it  is  impossible  for  us  to  close  our  eyes  on 
the  origin  of  the  Presbyterian  Establishment  in  that  country. 

With  regard  to  all  the  other  sects  in  Scotland,  which  have 
seceded  from  the  Presbyterian  community,  such  as  Glassites, 
Sandemanians,  Seceders,  Burghers,  Anti-burghers,  Constitu- 
tional Associate  Presbytery,  Relief  Kirk,  Scottish  Baptists, 
Bcreans,  Independents,  &c.;  the  same  observations  apply  to 
them  all.'  Their  predecessors,  the  Presbyterians,  voluntarily 
separated  themselves  from  the  catholic  church  of  Christ,  and 
they  in  departing  from  the  presbyterian  communion  have  not 
yet  returned  to  that  of  the  true  church.  Consequently  they 
form  no  part  of  the  church  of  Christ. 

Note. — A  learned  friend  has  suggested  that  the  statements,  p.  524,  as 
to  the  continuance  of  episcopacy,  are  disputable — that  the  irregularities  at 
that  time  were  so  great,  that  the  real  episcopacy  can  only  be  dated  from 
1612.  It  is  very  probable  indeed  that  the  episcopate  previously  existing 
was  not  a  genuine  episcopate,  as  I  have  intimated  p.  536,  527.  I  only 
meant  to  argue,  that  the  church  of  England  may  have  supposed  the  epis- 
copate of  Scotland  not  extinct.  For  further  remarks  on  Presbyterianism, 
see  the  Supplement. 

E>fD  OF  VOL.  r. 


^v 


/        .  'i 


i    • 


COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY 


0025998285 


?1^ 


»«'*"  '»»r- 


